1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Gaso476 Decided May 19, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with this Court No. 2014 Ghana476, and the service on the Plaintiff was served by public notice.

B. On May 19, 2014, the instant court rendered a judgment that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 56,439,195 won and 11,76,570 won among them at the rate of 29% per annum from December 28, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

The instant judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the court below 2015Hadan2765, 2015Ha2765, and the said exemption decision became final and conclusive on May 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) pursuant to the judgment of this case is exempted from its liability due to the determination of exemption. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the Plaintiff may not be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith while applying for bankruptcy and exemption. Thus, the effect of the above exemption decision does not extend to the claim of this case.

B. Determination 1) “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act even if he/she was negligent (see, e.g.