1. Compulsory execution against the defendant against the plaintiff by Busan District Court Decision 2005Gapo224743 decided Feb. 8, 2006 is enforced.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2003, the Defendant leased the Plaintiff with a deposit of five million won, monthly rent of five million won, and six million won.

B. In the case of the rent claim filed by the Defendant with the Plaintiff as the Defendant under the above lease agreement, the above court rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,010,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 30, 2005 to the date of complete payment, and the above judgment was delivered to the Plaintiff by means of service by public notice, and became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant debt”). C.

On January 21, 2008, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity as the District Court No. 2007,3257, and the said decision was the same year.

2. 6. Finality

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision to grant immunity”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, and 5

2. Determination

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides, “The debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim against the property claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy is declared bankrupt,” and Article 566 of the same Act provides, “The debtor who has been exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That this shall not apply to the following claims.” Thus, even if the bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, the debt of this case is exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010).