A. On November 6, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the criminal agreement amount against the Defendant on July 1, 2014, and filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of the guaranteed obligation with the Seoul Southern District Court 2018Da255116.

B. On March 14, 2019, the warden of the instant lawsuit served the Plaintiff’s mother on D, and thereafter, the said lawsuit became final and conclusive on March 14, 2019, by rendering a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 26,33,333 won and interest calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from January 1, 2016 to December 11, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). C.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on December 23, 2016 by the Suwon District Court 2015Hadan10272 and 2015Ma10272 by filing a petition for bankruptcy and immunity, and the decision became final and conclusive, and the above claim was not stated in the list of creditors submitted at the time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A claim on property arising from a cause before the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor, namely, a bankruptcy claim, even if a decision to grant immunity against a bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, does not fall under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall be

According to the above facts of recognition, the instant claim is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy and constitutes a bankruptcy claim and loses its executive force upon the confirmation of immunity decision against the plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant based on the above final judgment cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the argument.