A. On May 4, 2009, the defendant ("the defendant") filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. who jointly and severally guaranteed the debt B with the Suwon District Court 2009Gaga16288, and the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that "the plaintiff shall jointly and severally with C to pay to the defendant 35,149,550 won and 7,739,504 won, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 28, 2006 to the date of full payment (hereinafter "decision on performance recommendation of this case"). The decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on July 10, 2009.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). B. Claim on the instant decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant claim”).

The Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court 2008Hadan13841 (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”). At the time of the instant bankruptcy and application for immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the instant claims in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for immunity.

On October 30, 2009, the above court declared bankruptcy against the plaintiff, and decided to grant immunity on July 16, 2010, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on July 31, 2010.

C. On October 22, 2015, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant transferred the instant claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim on December 15, 2015, and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the Defendant on December 24, 2015 and applied for intervention. The Defendant withdrawn from the instant lawsuit with the Plaintiff’s consent on January 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including evidence attached with each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was omitted in the list of creditors due to lack of knowledge of the existence of the claim in this case at the time of the bankruptcy and application for immunity, and the above claim was also exempted by the decision of permission for immunity in this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of permission for performance recommendation in this case should be dismissed.