1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010 Ghana23732 Decided May 27, 201.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 1995, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant as a subsidy for production of magazines, and in connection with this, a notary public’s deed of promissory notes No. 426, Jan. 23, 1995, dated January 23, 1995, was drafted.

B. On December 6, 2010, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the said loan (Seoul Southern District Court 2010Daso233732), and on May 27, 2011, the court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff paid KRW 13.5 million to the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 17, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “the above judgment”) of this case C.

On the other hand, on March 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (Tgu District Court Decision 2011Hau 1139, 20139, 1139). On November 17, 2011, the court rendered bankruptcy and exemption from immunity against the Plaintiff, and the exemption from immunity became final and conclusive on December 3, 201.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), a debtor, upon receipt of a decision on bankruptcy and exemption from immunity, is exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, any bankruptcy claim not entered in the creditors’ list of application filed for immunity is subject to exemption from immunity.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant's claim according to the judgment of this case constitutes the subject of exemption, and it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s liability is not exempted pursuant to the proviso of Article 566(7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, since the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant judgment prior to the decision to grant immunity and did not enter the relevant claim in the creditor list.

The circumstances known through records, i.e., the plaintiff's bankruptcy and exemption procedures.