2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. During the period from July 15, 2005 to November 7, 2006, Nonparty C, the husband of the Defendant, deposited KRW 31,678,00 in cash or in the account under the name of the Defendant, but embezzled by failing to deliver it to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 22, 2007, the Plaintiff’s representative D filed a complaint with C and the Defendant for special public offering and embezzlement of public funds. On August 28, 2007, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order on the real estate owned by the Defendant with the claim for embezzlement amounting to KRW 31,678,000 as the claim amount (Seoul Central District Court 2007Kadan79647).

C. After that, upon the defendant's request, the plaintiff was ordered to cancel the provisional seizure, and instead, on September 6, 2007, the plaintiff was signed by the defendant in order to hold 31,670,000 won from the defendant liable for the day he committed. The plaintiff was held responsible for full payment by doing his best to contact with many efforts and power (hereinafter "each of the above cases"). On September 28, 2007, the plaintiff withdrawn the complaint against C and the defendant on September 28, 2007.

As the Defendant did not fully pay the money stated in the above letter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for payment of KRW 22,732,461, which deducts retirement pay and KRW 6 million paid partially by the Defendant, from the amount of embezzlement of C, and received a judgment in favor of the Defendant on September 3, 2008 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008DaDa159077, hereinafter “the judgment in front of the instant case”), and the judgment in the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive on September 25, 2008.

E. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant filed an application with the Incheon District Court for bankruptcy (2012Hadan5027) and exemption (2020). On July 25, 2013, the said court declared bankrupt against the Defendant. The Plaintiff, included in the list of creditors of the said application, filed an objection against the declaration of bankruptcy, heard opinions twice, and presented that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant should be excluded from the claim subject to exemption. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should be excluded from the claim subject to exemption. < Amended by Act No. 1212, Dec. 12, 2013>