A. On December 13, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da205215, the Defendant brought a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan, and the lawsuit was brought by public notice without knowing the Plaintiff’s service domicile, and on December 13, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced by the above court that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 4,00,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 4, 2011 to the date of complete payment.” The above judgment was finalized on January 4, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff was granted immunity on November 21, 2013 by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2013Hadan7934, 2013 7934, and became final and conclusive around that time.

In the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity, the Defendant’s claim based on the judgment of this case (hereinafter “instant claim for judgment”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7 evidence, Eul's 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim for the instant judgment is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and as a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability against the Plaintiff ought to be exempted pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

B. The first defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion that C borrowed money from the defendant by using his/her identification card and seal imprint, etc., but this is due to the plaintiff's negligence, and thus, the plaintiff shall be held liable.

The defendant sent a certificate of demand for repayment to the plaintiff several times, but did not comply with it.