1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2010 Ghana687350 decided on the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 13, 1994, the loan agreement of this case(hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”) entered into on December 13, 1994, the loan agreement of this case(hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”) stating the borrower E, the borrower F, the borrower’s joint guarantor F, the loan amount of KRW 10 million, the short-term general loan for the household of the loan curriculum, the short-term general loan for the household of the loan curriculum, the interest rate of December 13, 1995, the rate of 12.5% per annum (17% per annum), and the F as joint guarantor is the person who died of the Plaintiff’s husband at the time.

B. On July 19, 200, when the above loan was not repaid, banks filed a lawsuit claiming the return of loan (Seoul Central District Court 2000 Ghana 1418074 case) against the Plaintiff and F, and was sentenced to winning the Plaintiff by the above court on November 7, 2000.

(c)

Since then, the bank transferred the above judgment claim to G Limited Company, and the company limited to G transferred it to H Limited Company and H Limited Company to the defendant again and the defendant was the final transferee.

(d)

On October 25, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and F for prohibition of acquisition (Seoul Eastern District Court 2010 Ghana 687350 case), and the lawsuit was also initiated by serving public notice to the Defendants. On December 22, 2010, the aforementioned court held that the Defendants (the Plaintiff and F) jointly and severally paid 21,378,517 won to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) and 5,974,85 won to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff and F of this case) at a rate of 18% per annum from October 5, 2010 to the day of full payment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). The Defendants (the Plaintiff and F of this case)’s lawsuit was also conducted by serving public notice to the Defendants, and the purport of each of subparagraphs 2 through 5-1, 3-1, and 5-1, respectively.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim and its related matters

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion did not receive a loan from the E bank with money that was the cause of the judgment on the confirmation of this case, and the plaintiff's signature under the loan agreement of this case.