1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s claim on the attached list against the Plaintiff was exempted from liability.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a three-time credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant when receiving a loan from the Pyeongtaek-dong Agricultural Cooperative around 2000 and around 2001, and received a loan from the said Nonghyup for three times around that time (hereinafter each of the loans of this case). Each of the credit guarantee principal was KRW 17,370,000, KRW 27,000,000, KRW 20,000 (hereinafter each of the credit guarantee principal of this case).

B. The Plaintiff did not repay the loans to the said Nonghyup, and the Defendant subrogated 72,717,337 won to the said Nonghyup on October 11, 2007.

The defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff for the above subrogation and received payment order of KRW 127,024,675 including principal and interest.

C. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and exemption with the Gwangju District Court (2016Hadan883, 2016da883, and 2016da883) and became final and conclusive on November 18, 2010.

At the time, the Plaintiff entered the national happiness Fund, SB Savings Bank, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Company, AB Asset Loan Management Limited Company, and MMD Limited Company, etc. in the list of creditors, but did not state the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] The absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. In light of the facts established on the Plaintiff’s claim, the instant loan claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), and thus, the instant immunity was granted, and thus, the Plaintiff was exempted from the Plaintiff’s liability to repay the claim as prescribed in the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should be dismissed unless there are special circumstances.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1 as to the Defendant’s defense is at the time when the Plaintiff grants immunity to the instant case.