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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a credit loan agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with a loan of KRW 15,000,000, loan period of KRW 36 months, interest rate of 29.9% per annum, and delayed interest rate of KRW 39% per annum.

B. C: June 18, 2014, the Defendant:

On July 10, 2014, a notice of assignment of claims was given to the Plaintiff with content certification.

C. On October 13, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of money transferred ( Daejeon District Court 2014DaDa392618). On November 4, 2014, the decision of performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff on November 19, 2014, and became final and conclusive on November 19, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant recommendations”) D.

Based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case, the Defendant filed an application with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2017TTTTT 2017TTT 33631 for the seizure and collection order of the claim against five and five and the third debtor, and the Seogu District Court issued a collection order on October 10, 2017.

E. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Hadle2351, 2014Hadle2351, 2014, 2351), and on July 3, 2015, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on July 18, 2015 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity from the above court.

The plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors of bankruptcy and exemption cases.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-3, and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the claim of this case was omitted in the creditor list, but did not omitted in the creditor list in bad faith, and thus, the decision of immunity on the claim of this case also remains effective.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the decision to grant immunity does not extend to the claim of this case, since the plaintiff was omitted in the creditor list with knowledge that the claim of this case exists.

B. The debtor's rehabilitation.