1. The Defendant’s decision on recommendations for the Defendant’s extension of loans 2009 Ghana3423 against the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant leased KRW 3,000,00 to the plaintiff and C on May 27, 2005 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). After that, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on August 5, 2009 seeking reimbursement of KRW 3,00,000 for the loan of this case and delayed payment damages therefor from the Suwon District Court, under the Act No. 2009No3423, Jun. 5, 2009, the above court rejected the above decision of performance recommendation on August 11, 209 (hereinafter "the decision of performance recommendation of this case"), on the premise that the above decision of performance recommendation was finalized on Sep. 19, 2009, and thereafter, the plaintiff is still liable for immunity from all the claims of this case to the court and the above 301,2937,297,2013.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the loan claim in this case constitutes “a claim which is not entered in the creditor list in bad faith,” as provided by Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the Defendant did not exempt the Plaintiff from the obligation, inasmuch as the Plaintiff knew the existence of the loan claim in this case at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity.

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.