1. The defendant's decision of performance recommendation against the plaintiff on December 3, 2009 by Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana34534.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a loan suit against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2009 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da334534, and on December 3, 2009, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 6,000,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from November 16, 2004 to the delivery date of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment” was issued a decision of performance recommendation, and the said decision of performance recommendation was served on December 7, 2009 to the Plaintiff’s mother-child on December 22, 209.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (b)

On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt in Daejeon District Court 2009Hadan4219, and was granted immunity in the same court on June 24, 2010 in the case of immunity. The above immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant performance recommendation decision in the list of creditors at the time.

C. The Defendant is “the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 8, 2009 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the service of the decision on performance recommendation for the instant amount of KRW 6,000,000 and the day following the service of the decision on performance recommendation.”

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, Eul 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The party’s assertion (1) Plaintiff’s assertion (1) No loan of KRW 6 million based on the Defendant’s decision on the instant performance recommendation against the Plaintiff does exist.

② Since the Plaintiff was granted a decision to grant immunity, the Plaintiff was exempted from liability for the obligations based on the decision to grant the instant performance recommendation.

Since the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the above claim, it did not err in bankruptcy proceedings in bad faith in the list of creditors.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion ① lent to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 6 million on two occasions, each of which exceeds KRW 3 million.

② The Plaintiff shall be a list of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings in bad faith.