1. The Defendant’s ruling on the loan case (No. 2013Gada24351, Jul. 16, 2013) against the Plaintiff was based on the Busan District Court’s ruling.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2004, the Defendant was issued a certificate of borrowed money to the effect that the Defendant remitted KRW 4,000,000 to a deposit account in the name of C, which was denied by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”), and that “4,00,000 won was borrowed from the Plaintiff and the maturity date was February 5, 2004.”

B. On February 7, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the instant loan (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with the Busan District Court Decision 2013Da24351, and on July 16, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 4,00,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 5, 2004 to May 1, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Meanwhile, the said court served a notice of the Plaintiff on the date of pleading and the date of pleading by public notice, in order to have the Plaintiff not served with the duplicate, etc. of the complaint, by means of each service. The Plaintiff appeared at each of the first and second legal dates for pleading ( June 4, 2013) of the instant lawsuit at each of the instant legal proceedings on July 16, 2013.

C. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity for bankruptcy and immunity with the Busan District Court Decision 2012Hadan1698, 2012Ma1698 (hereinafter “application for immunity”) and filed a petition for immunity from the above court on April 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant immunity from immunity”).

A) Each of the above declaration of bankruptcy and the pertinent decision of immunity became final and conclusive on May 10, 2013, and the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while filing for bankruptcy and application for immunity did not indicate the instant loan obligations. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination as to whether the decision on immunity of this case is a ground for objection

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is the instant case.