1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013 Ghana25645 against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the loan case filed against the plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2003Gaso84317, the defendant received a decision of performance recommendation from the above court that "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 15 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment." The above decision of performance recommendation was served on July 20, 2003 and confirmed on August 5, 2003.

B. For the interruption of extinctive prescription, the Defendant received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) from the above court with the same content as the loan case raised by the Seoul Northern District Court 2013 Ghana25645, and the said decision on performance recommendation was served on July 15, 2013, and became final and conclusive on July 30, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Hadan9821, and on August 6, 2007, the Plaintiff was granted immunity by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Ma9831, and the said immunity became final and conclusive on August 6, 2007.

The list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff in the above immunity case is not included in the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff received immunity from the Plaintiff, and the instant debt was incurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy and was not recorded in the Plaintiff’s list due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know it at the time of making the list of creditors, and thus, the exemption from immunity is granted by immunity. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision

B. Since the Defendant Plaintiff omitted the instant debt in bad faith in the case of immunity, the Plaintiff is not exempt from the instant debt.

3. According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, even if the entry of the obligee is omitted in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for discharge, it includes all obligations against the obligee whose entry has been omitted.