1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of land with the Cheongju District Court Branch. On October 2, 2014, the said court rendered a partial favorable judgment of the Plaintiff (2014Gahap3061). On October 20, 2015, the Daejeon High Court, which is the appellate court (the Defendant’s expansion of claims), rendered a partial favorable judgment of the Plaintiff (2014Na21411) on October 20, 2015, and on November 4, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 10, 2016.

B. On March 16, 2016, the Defendants filed an application with Cheongju District Court I for substitute execution for the said judgment, and served a written examination on April 4, 2016, and the Plaintiff submitted the written opinion on April 8, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the Defendants rendered a decision of substitute execution. The alternative execution was conducted on April 20, 2016.

C. On February 9, 2017, the Defendants filed an application with Cheongju District Court H for the determination of the cost of executing the said substitute execution, and rendered a decision of acceptance on April 12, 2017.

On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained immunity from the above court (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendants’ claim for alternative enforcement expenses in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is: (a) aware at the time when the immunity decision of this case is granted, that the Plaintiff was liable for alternative enforcement costs against the Defendants; and (b) omitted them on the creditor list; and (c) did not intentionally omit it; and (d) accordingly, the effect of immunity extends to the Defendants’ above obligations

B. The obligor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) is in bad faith in the list of creditors.