The defendant's decision on the Seoul Northern District Court 2010Kadan5387 against the plaintiff is based on the decision.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 23, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of promissory notes with Seoul Northern District Court 2010Kadan5387, and sentenced the said court to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 96,730,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 22, 2009 to June 19, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment was finalized on September 3, 2010.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt and filed an application for immunity with the Incheon District Court No. 2016Hadan4292 and 2016Ma4292, and was granted immunity from the above court on December 18, 2017 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The said immunity became final and conclusive on January 3, 2018.

C. Meanwhile, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure was not indicated by the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the final judgment of the instant case (hereinafter “instant claim”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any claim on the property that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the debtor who has been exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims." Thus, even if it is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, a bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from its liability with respect to the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above facts, the claims of this case are