1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant filed a lawsuit against C and its joint guarantor and the plaintiff, who is the wife of C, after subrogated for the debt owed to the Daegu Bank of Daegu, and filed a claim for reimbursement on May 22, 2006. "C, as the defendant," "6,807,841 won and delay damages therefor, and the plaintiff jointly and severally with C, paid 6,198,116 won and delay damages therefor, and the plaintiff paid 6,196 won out of the above money and its delay damages." (Tgu District Court Decision 2006Da163495, hereinafter "the defendant's claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff against the plaintiff," and the execution recommendation decision was delivered to the plaintiff on June 1, 2006 and finalized on June 16, 2006.

Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and received a decision on performance recommendation (Seoul District Court 2016Gau18747, hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”) on May 3, 2016. The instant performance recommendation decision was served on the Plaintiff on June 15, 2016, and became final and conclusive on June 30, 2016.

On November 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daegu District Court Decision 2009Hadan9728, 2009Da9728, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted immunity on December 13, 2010. The above immunity became final and conclusive on December 28, 2010.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors at the time of applying for bankruptcy and exemption.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole, the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings, without knowledge of the existence of the claim of this case due to C, which is the spouse before the long-term period of time, and became aware of its existence. Thus, the plaintiff did not omit it in the list of creditors in bad faith at the time of applying for exemption from bankruptcy.

Therefore, since the debt of this case against the defendant was exempted, it was based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case.