1. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor’s judgment against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2017 on the acquisition amount case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed 4 million won from E Co., Ltd.

B. On April 2016, E Co., Ltd. transferred its claim against the Plaintiff to B.

C. B Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to claim the acquisition amount (2017 Ghana70460), and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on April 27, 2017, and became final and conclusive.

(hereinafter “Final Judgment”). However, the above case is rendered by means of service and notification of the date of pleading for the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was granted immunity on August 9, 2019 in Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2019Do663, which became final and conclusive on August 27, 2019.

However, the list of creditors is not recorded in the final judgment.

E. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was transferred by B the final judgment claim against the Plaintiff.

【Ground Nos. 1 through 8, 1 and 2】

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of claim, the above final and conclusive claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from a cause before bankruptcy is declared (Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the immunity decision becomes final and conclusive, and is exempt from liability pursuant to the main sentence of Article 5

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above final judgment is not allowed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the defense was issued to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2017 by the instant court 2017 other debt 15819, and the Plaintiff applied for the alteration of the scope of the claim prohibited from seizure on September 19, 2017. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the alteration of the scope of the claim prohibited from seizure on September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff was unable to enter it in the list of creditors by negligence while being aware of the existence of the final and conclusive judgment claim, and thus, constitutes non-

B. When a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the aforementioned Act.