The decision of the Seoul Central District Court 201Gaso219196 against the plaintiff is based on the price of goods.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff in the case described in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition. On April 5, 2012, the instant case was proceeded by public notice, and on April 5, 2012, the judgment that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) paid KRW 3,017,720 to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(B) The Defendant’s claim under the instant judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On February 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Hadan1075 and 2016Ma1075 and filed an application for immunity on December 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The foregoing decision became final and conclusive on January 5, 2017, and the Defendant did not appear in the list of creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. A claim on property arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor regarding the determination on the cause of a claim, that is, a bankruptcy claim, even if the immunity decision on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, is not entered in the list of creditors at the time of the application for immunity, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same Act is exempted from the liability

According to the above facts, the instant claim is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the immunity decision of this case became final and conclusive, thereby losing its executive force.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted unless there are other special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The plaintiff and the defendant asserted from March 2009 to March 2009.