1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Cheongju District Court Decision 2015Da302042 Decided July 7, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for reimbursement claim against the Plaintiff. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on July 7, 2015, following the service of the Plaintiff by public notice. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and applied for immunity (2016Haak 389, 2016 Ma389, 2016 Ma389) in this court, and the decision of immunity was rendered on May 23, 2017. The decision of immunity became final and conclusive around that time. At the time of the above application, the claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) was not stated in the list of creditors.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 or 5 (including a case where there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a claim on property arising from a cause that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt is a bankruptcy claim. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures. Thus, the claim in this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim that occurred before the bankruptcy of the plaintiff is declared against the plaintiff, and the fact that a decision to exempt the plaintiff was made on May 2017 and that became final and conclusive around that time is as seen earlier, the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff based on the judgment in this case cannot be permitted,

B. Regarding this, the Defendant, insofar as the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the time limit for guarantee for the instant claim three times, omitted by negligence with knowledge of the existence of the instant claim in the process of obtaining the exemption decision, which constitutes a non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the effect of the exemption is effective for the Defendant.