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

A. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on May 28, 2013 in the Incheon District Court Decision 2012Hadan3818, the 2012Hah 3816, and was decided to grant immunity on December 26, 2013.

B. However, when the above declaration of bankruptcy was declared, the list of creditors did not have the defendant's loan claims.

C. On May 13, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Incheon District Court 2015Kadan26930, and the loan claim was a claim arising from the cause of the said bankruptcy against the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit for the above loan claim was initiated by public notice against the plaintiff, and the argument was concluded on September 22, 2015, and on September 30, 2015, the judgment was rendered to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay 80 million won and 25% interest per annum to the defendant at the rate of 85% per annum from February 1, 2009 to the day of full payment." The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment of the executive titles”). [Judgment of the executive titles of this case] [Grounds for recognition] did not dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was already subject to bankruptcy or exemption prior to the judgment of the defendant's execution title of this case, and the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the defendant in the list of creditors. Thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the above loan,

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the execution title against the plaintiff of this case should not be permitted.

3. One-speak, and the reason for an objection in a lawsuit of demurrer shall, in case where the executive titles are the judgment, have occurred after the pleadings have been closed;

(Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act. However, since the grounds for objection asserted by the Plaintiff, that is, the decision of bankruptcy or exemption, is obvious that the judgment of execution title of this case occurred before September 30, 2015 when the judgment of execution title of this case was concluded, the Plaintiff cannot claim it as grounds for objection.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

Moreover, the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 are written.