1. The defendant's claim against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gaso1740838.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 1995, the Plaintiff concluded a microcredit guarantee contract with the Defendant and submitted the said guarantee certificate to obtain a loan of KRW 10,000,000 from Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

B. Upon occurrence of the insured event stipulated in the above guaranty insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,892,204 to Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. on December 30, 1997.

C. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul District Court 98Gaso68903 against the plaintiff and received a favorable judgment by public notice on October 16, 1998. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gaso1740838 against the plaintiff for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim based on the above judgment and received a favorable judgment by public notice on July 17, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, on June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with Suwon District Court 2010, 4880, 2010Hadan4880, which was declared bankrupt on February 7, 2011, and was granted immunity on August 25, 201. The Defendant, the creditor of the instant obligation, is missing in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was not aware of the existence of the debt of this case and did not enter the defendant in the creditor list at the time of the application for discharge, but omitted in bad faith. Thus, since the debt of this case was exempted, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be rejected.

As to this, the defendant was aware of the existence of the debt of this case, but did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors in bad faith. Thus, it constitutes grounds for non-permission of exemption under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.