1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Changwon District Court Kim Jong-si Court Decision 2006Gaso20369 delivered on July 6, 2006.

On April 26, 2006, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the loan with the court 2006Gapo20369, and on July 6, 2006, the court held that the plaintiff shall pay the plaintiff 2,00,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 25, 2006 to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case", and the defendant's claim recognized in the judgment of this case is referred to as "claim of this case"). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on July 29, 2006.

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Changwon District Court Decision 201Hau1, 1236, 201, and 1237, and obtained the decision to grant exemption (hereinafter “instant decision to grant exemption”), and on December 12, 2013, the decision to grant exemption became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff in the list of creditors at the time of the decision to grant exemption.

【Legal basis for recognition】 Each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and the whole statement of the pleading

A. According to the above facts, this case’s loan’s loan’s claim is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and thus, the effect of immunity has become final and conclusive, thereby losing the power and authority of filing a lawsuit with ordinary claims, and compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case is no longer permissible.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant loan claim constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, are ① the loan claims of this case, which appears to have occurred not less than seven years prior to the date of decision on immunity of this case, and ② the loan claims of this case are deemed to have occurred.