1. A notary public C who belongs to the defendant's original prosecutors' office against the plaintiff shall be a notary public in the purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff issued promissory notes with face value of KRW 200 million, borrowing KRW 200 million from the Defendant’s mother E.

(hereinafter “instant debt”). (The Plaintiff’s debt to E” refers to the Plaintiff’s debt

B. On March 29, 2011, the notarial deed as stated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “notarial deed”) was prepared on March 29, 201, and the Defendant stated that the notarial deed of this case lent KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff, upon filing an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, entered the instant debt in the creditor list and entered the creditor in E, but did not enter the matters regarding the instant notarial deed.

The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on October 17, 2012, the Changwon District Court 2012Hadan1839, and was granted immunity by Changwon District Court 201Da1839.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the cause of the claim (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”), a debtor, upon whom bankruptcy and immunity is granted, is exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures. Therefore, any bankruptcy claim that is not entered in the list of creditors of the application filed for immunity, shall also be exempted from immunity.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the obligation related to the notarial deed of this case constitutes the subject of exemption, and it is reasonable to deny the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant does not grant immunity because the plaintiff knew that he/she did not enter his/her obligation with respect to the Notarial Deed in the list of creditors.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, which can be seen, are stated in the notarial deed of this case.