1. The defendant's decision on recommendations for execution of the Seoul Western District Court 2001Gaso50279 advertising costs against the plaintiff was based on the Seoul Western District Court's decision.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2001, the Korea Telephone Board Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit for advertising price with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2001 Ghana50279 against the Plaintiff.

On May 18, 2001, this Court rendered a decision of performance recommendation and confirmed on June 12, 2001 as it became final and conclusive on June 12, 2001 because the Plaintiff did not object to the decision of performance recommendation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (b)

On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Hadan7637, 2014Ka777, and was declared bankrupt on September 2, 2014, and was decided to be exempted on October 15, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff by transfer on the basis of the instant performance recommendation decision, and on September 10, 2015, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015TTT12648 issued a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s deposit claim by designating the Plaintiff as the debtor.

(hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim as prescribed by the above provisions of the Act even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The fact that the debtor filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption on July 29, 2014 when at least 13 years have passed since June 12, 2011, which was recognized as above. Accordingly, it appears that the plaintiff was unaware of the obligation based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case at the time of preparing the list of creditors applying for bankruptcy and exemption.

In the end, this is eventually.