1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a law firm (with limited liability) and a promissory note No. 301, April 9, 2010.

1. Factual basis

A. On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 500 million and payment date July 15, 2010, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed to the effect that the said promissory note is acceptable for compulsory execution under the said Promissory Notes No. 301, 2010, on the same day.

(B) At the time, the Plaintiff’s trade name was “D”. The said Promissory Notes were “instant Promissory Notes” (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures on December 16, 2013, and the rehabilitation procedure commenced on December 16, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap248), and on July 3, 2014, the rehabilitation procedure was completed on September 4, 2014 after the approval for rehabilitation plan was issued.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant rehabilitation procedure"). C.

In the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the Defendant did not report the instant promissory notes claims, and the Defendant’s administrator did not enter them in the list of rehabilitation creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant promissory note claim based on the cause of claim falls under the rehabilitation claim since it was caused before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure in this case. Since it is a rehabilitation claim that is not recorded in the list of rehabilitation creditors but has not been reported, so long as it is decided to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan, the Defendant was forfeited, thereby

Since debts exempted from rehabilitation procedures cannot be forced to perform their obligations, compulsory execution based on the above executory certificate for the defendant's above executory claim shall be rejected.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the claim based on the Promissory Notes of this case was not forfeited, since the Plaintiff’s equipment was attached and the decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure of this case and the written objection were not served.

However, the fact that rehabilitation creditors commence rehabilitation procedures and the reporting period of rehabilitation claims, etc. in rehabilitation procedures.