1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gaso1348372 Decided May 26, 2011.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the above court rendered a judgment on May 26, 2011 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 13,858,335 won and 5,852,64 won a year-based interest rate of 20% from May 26, 2010 to the date of full payment." The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on June 24, 201, and the plaintiff filed a claim for immunity and immunity with Suwon District Court Decision 2011Hau2954, 2012, 201, 2954, and 2954 at the time of bankruptcy, and the creditor's immunity and immunity are not established on July 25, 2012.

Any property claim arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, i.e., a bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), even though the immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, and is not entered in the list of creditors.

In addition, the exemption of liability due to the discharge is limited to the exclusion of the right of recourse and the executory power of the claim, regardless of the existence and scope of the claim itself, so the problem of liability is not appeared as the object of adjudication in a lawsuit seeking the performance of the obligation against the debtor, and the issue of liability does not affect the res judicata in relation to the relationship which is not judged in the order and reasons as it is not the object of adjudication.

Therefore, even after the debtor is granted immunity, the decision became final and conclusive as the creditor seeks, because the creditor did not claim the effect of immunity until the closure of the trial proceedings filed by the creditor.