A. The facts of recognition (1) If the Defendant borrowed money on October 28, 2002, but instead did not have the intent or ability to repay it, it would pay the Plaintiff interest on KRW 40 million a monthly 3-year basis.

‘Falsely speaking, the Plaintiff acquired property benefits by allowing the Plaintiff to pay KRW 40 million to C, a creditor of the Defendant.

(2) On November 9, 2004, the court accepted the Plaintiff’s application for compensation and paid the Plaintiff KRW 40 million.

"The court issued an order for compensation (2004 high group 1475), and the above order for compensation was finalized on January 1, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 21, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.

2. As the Defendant’s defense was exempted from the instant claim upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity by the court 2014Da2091, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant declared bankrupt and applied for immunity in this court on November 20, 2014, which was granted immunity by this court as 2014Da2091 on November 20, 2014, and that the above immunity exemption becomes final and conclusive around that time.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, the claim in this case is a damage claim based on the fraudulent act, and can be recognized as an "non-exempt claim based on a tort" under the proviso of Article 566 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the claim in this case is ultimately exempt from immunity.