1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gaso414757.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant around 1994, and did not repay the principal and interest thereon.

Accordingly, the payment order with the purport that "10 million won and 18.5% per annum from April 25, 1998 to May 24, 1998, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" was issued on October 28, 1998, and became final and conclusive around that time.

(Seoul Southern District Court 98 tea12260) In addition, on June 24, 1998, the defendant executed provisional seizure against the plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff on the above loan claims.

B. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the balance of the above loan claim, and the judgment of the court below stating that “7,522,293 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 1, 2001 to August 10, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was rendered and confirmed around that time by August 25, 2010.

(Seoul Central District Court 2010 Ghana414757, hereinafter “instant judgment”). However, the said lawsuit was carried out by service of public notice because the Defendant’s address is not identified.

C. On February 7, 2018, the Defendant, based on the instant judgment against the Plaintiff, applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim, etc., and rendered a judgment of seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff on February 14, 2018.

In addition, the above decision was served on the plaintiff's registered domicile (Seoul Seongdong-gu D), and on March 8, 2018, the plaintiff's Dong E received it at the above address.

On the other hand, on January 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2018Hadan12, 2018Ma12, and received immunity on June 27, 2018, and became final and conclusive around that time.

However, the judgment of this case is based on the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the above application.