1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gaso631266.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 7, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the takeover amount against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da631266, and the lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice, and on July 19, 2012, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 21,814,485 and the damages for delay amounting to KRW 7,849,340 among them,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2018, 2588 and 2018Hadan2588, and on October 30, 2018, the decision became final and conclusive on November 15, 2018. At the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter obligations according to the instant judgment in the list of creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Any property claim arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, i.e., bankruptcy claim, even if the decision to exempt the debtor from the liability becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, the bankruptcy claim is exempt from the effect of immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, a claim that became the cause of the instant judgment is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and has lost its executive force upon the confirmation of immunity decision against the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the instant judgment against the Plaintiff cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant received not only the judgment of this case but also three seizures and collection orders against the plaintiff and notified the plaintiff of the seizure to the financial institution.