A. On June 16, 2017, the decision to grant immunity was rendered against the Plaintiff (the Changwon District Court Decision 2017:145, 2017Hadan146), and July 1, 2017, and the claim of the Defendant (the transferee of the claim against the Plaintiff from C around March 26, 2016) was not included in the list of creditors.

B. On February 12, 2015, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim. On August 20, 2015, the said lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice, and on August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff, “C” as Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ghana 567936, paid to C the amount of KRW 3,002,476 and the amount of KRW 3,000,000 per annum from November 5, 2014 to the date of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

C. The Defendant was granted the succeeding execution clause on August 15, 2015.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1-11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A claim on the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor for the determination of the cause of the claim shall be exempt from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act unless the decision to grant immunity against the bankrupt falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, even though it is not recorded in the list of creditors;

Since the Defendant’s claim on the written judgment stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition against the Plaintiff is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff, and the decision of immunity against the Plaintiff loses its executive force upon the confirmation of the decision of immunity, compulsory execution based on the judgment stated in Paragraph 1 of the Defendant’s Disposition against the Plaintiff is not permissible, and ex officio, the Defendant’s claim is accepted, and the suspension of compulsory execution is ordered, until this judgment becomes final and conclusive in accordance with Articles

3. The defendant's assertion was notified of the assignment of claims to the plaintiff's domicile by C and the defendant, the transferor of claims, and the plaintiff's bad faith in the discharge case.