1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Jeju District Court Decision 2016Gaso6311 Decided January 20, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around July 2006, D borrowed KRW 2.5 million from the Defendant, and at the time, the Plaintiff, who had been the spouse D, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Defendant.

B. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with Jeju District Court Decision 2012Hadan500, 2012Ma500, and the said court determined the Plaintiff’s exemption and exemption from liability on November 15, 2013 following the declaration of bankruptcy and became final and conclusive on November 30, 2013.

At the time that the Plaintiff applied for exemption, etc. as above, the above joint and several liability obligations against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligation”) cannot be separately stated in the list of creditors.

C. Around December 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D and the Plaintiff seeking the payment of loans (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with the Jeju District Court 2016Da66311, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the Defendant’s claim on January 20, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(At the time, the location of the plaintiff et al. is unclear, and the copy and original copy of the judgment were served by public notice to D and the plaintiff). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Whether the exemption claim falls under 1) Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).

(1) Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the same Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and the obligor does not enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not aware of the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim as prescribed by the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, then the obligor is negligent in the list of creditors.