2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Conclusion of a contract for fidelity guarantee insurance and payment of insurance money 1) The defendant shall have neglected tourism on April 28, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as a neglected tourism).

B) The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract for fidelity Guarantee with the amount of five million won as the surety (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”) between the Plaintiff and the principal and the principal.

(2) The instant guarantee agreement was a content that compensates the Plaintiff for the loss incurred by the Plaintiff’s neglect of tourism due to the tort (Embezzlement, embezzlement, breach of trust, etc.) while working as a neglected tourist employee.

3) Under the instant contract of guarantee, L/C, L/C, L/C, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for insurance proceeds on the ground that the Plaintiff sustained property damage due to embezzlement of public funds while working for the Defendant. Accordingly, on April 4, 1988, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million insurance proceeds to neglected tourism. B. A claim for reimbursement and exemption 1) The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for reimbursement against the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 2850,000 which was not paid out of the above payment insurance amount under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da181469, and the compensation for delay was finalized upon the decision of performance recommendation on July 20, 2007.

2) On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by filing a bankruptcy immunity application with the Daejeon District Court 2012Hadan2400, 201 201, and was granted immunity on June 10, 2013. The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”).

3) The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the decision on immunity of the instant case included the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff regarding the insurance money that the Defendant paid to neglected tourism under the instant guarantee agreement.

(hereinafter “instant claim for reimbursement”). 4 For the interruption of extinctive prescription of the previous decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on April 11, 2017 against the Seoul Central District Court 2017 Ghana 14297 (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) and rendered a decision of performance recommendation to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the Defendant’s claim.