2. This Court shall have filed an application with this Court for stay of enforcement.

A. 1) Around 2002, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2002Kadan201266) seeking the payment of indemnity, and obtained a favorable judgment on October 15, 2002, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit again against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan147897, hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) for the interruption of extinctive prescription on the above final and conclusive judgment (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”), and the lawsuit was filed on September 13, 2012, “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 60 million and 5% interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 29, 2000 to the day of complete payment.”

3) Around 2018, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal against the above judgment. The appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2018Na19902) rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 15, 2019. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “instant final and conclusive judgment”).

B) Meanwhile, in around 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2012Hadan3006, 2012 3006, 2006). From the said case (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2012Hadan306, 2006) to June 25, 2012, and on November 14, 2012, the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”).

) Each was rendered by each court, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on November 30, 2012. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 2 through 7, Eul evidence 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff failed to enter the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant in the list of creditors by negligence, according to the decision to grant immunity in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s obligation for indemnity under the final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant was discharged. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment should be denied. 2) Since the Defendant’s claim for indemnity under the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a damage claim arising from intentional tort, it constitutes non-exempt claim.

(b) the debtor’s rehabilitation and determination;