1. The Plaintiff’s compulsory execution against the Defendant by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gahap9429 Decided July 24, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 19, 2002, the Credit Union (hereinafter “B”) filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee agent, etc., who served as the president of the New Consultation under the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch 2002Gahap918.

B. On May 28, 2003, the Korean Deposit Insurance Corporation appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy upon the declaration of bankruptcy on the part of the B, and on November 26, 2004, rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 642,987,00 to B, and delay damages therefor,” and the part against the said Plaintiff became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) a claim established by the judgment of the first instance.

B on October 6, 2008, the New Cooperation transferred the instant claim to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the said transfer on February 11, 2009.

On July 24, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim for the amount of money transferred to the Defendant, and the judgment in favor of the Defendant in favor of the lower court as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court 2009Hadan2802, 2009Haba2803.

On November 11, 2010, the above court rendered immunity and the above decision became final and conclusive on the 26th of the same month.

At the time, the plaintiff also entered the defendant's claim for the judgment in the list of creditors.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-5's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. On the plaintiff's assertion that compulsory execution according to the second judgment should not be denied on the ground that the claim of this case was exempted from liability, the defendant asserts that since the claim of this case falls under the damage claim based on intentional tort under Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), the above judgment has executory power, since it constitutes damage claim based on intentional tort under Article 566 of the same Act.

3. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff ①.