1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Gadan229893.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 21, 2002, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. as Seoul Central District Court 2002Kadan6981, and the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on August 14, 2002, which became final and conclusive on October 2, 2002.

(hereinafter the above final and conclusive judgment is called “previous final and conclusive judgment,” and its deadline claims are referred to as “instant bonds”). B.

The plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with Suwon District Court 2007Hadan3045, 2007 3064.

The above court declared the plaintiff bankrupt on September 12, 2007, and rendered a decision to grant immunity on January 4, 2008, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on January 19, 2008.

However, in making the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, the Plaintiff stated the amount of claims of other financial institutions in the list of creditors, but did not state the claims of this case.

C. On December 24, 2012, the Defendant filed a new lawsuit seeking reimbursement with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Da229893 for the extension of the extinctive prescription of claims based on the previous final judgment. On April 25, 2013, the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DRB”) provides that “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure.” The instant claim constitutes a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and thus, the Plaintiff was exempted from its liability for the instant claim against the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant claim has lost its executive force with ordinary claims.