1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the loan case was based on the Incheon District Court Decision 2010 Ghana1619 against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff under the Incheon District Court 2010Gaso1619 against the Incheon District Court (hereinafter “Promotion Mutual Savings Bank”) and confirmed as is on January 29, 2010 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection to the decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation”); the Plaintiff filed an application for personal bankruptcy (No. 2015Hau10028) and exemption (No. 2015Hau 10028), with the Incheon District Court, and received immunity from the above court on July 29, 2015; the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff of the Promotion Mutual Savings Bank based on the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case; the Defendant received the claim attachment and collection order against the Plaintiff as the obligor on December 17, 2014 by acquiring the claim against the Plaintiff of the Promotion Mutual Savings Bank based on the promotion Mutual Savings Bank’s decision on performance recommendation of the instant case; or the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each evidence No.

According to the above facts of recognition, the decision on immunity of this case becomes final and conclusive, and thus, is exempt from all of the Plaintiff’s obligations based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

Therefore, since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case has lost the executive force with ordinary claims, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case shall be dismissed.

As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that “the claim of this case, which was filed after the decision on immunity became final and conclusive, without any objection to the Plaintiff’s actual delivery of the above claim and collection order, by the Defendant, shall be dismissed against the good faith principle.” However, as alleged by the Defendant, the instant claim cannot be deemed contrary to the good faith principle solely on the ground that the circumstance alleged by the Defendant cannot be deemed as contrary to the Defendant’s assertion (In light of the evidence No. 13, it can be acknowledged that the above claim attachment and collection order was served by public notice on April 4, 201

3...