1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Gadan22032 was conducted based on the judgment on the loan case.

1. Basic facts

A. From May 2010 to December 27, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 2, 2016 against the Seoul Northern District Court 2016Gadan22032 on the ground that: (a) the Defendant lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff; (b) received reimbursement of KRW 5,00,000 from May 201, but did not receive the remainder; and (c) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the loan claim against the Plaintiff.

On November 24, 2016, the lower court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 25,00,000 and the amount equivalent to 15% per annum from October 27, 2016 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff by public notice and became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant debt”). (b)

On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) filed bankruptcy and application for immunity on November 9, 2016; and (b) received the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016, 4725 decision to grant immunity; and (c) the said decision became final and conclusive on November 25, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant exemption decision”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional statement), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any claim on the property that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the debtor who has been exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims." Thus, even if it is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, a bankruptcy claim is exempted from its liability with respect to 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). According to the above facts recognized, according to the above facts, the debt of this case is not listed in the list of creditors as bankruptcy claims: