1. The Defendant’s decision against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011Gaso673297 Decided November 23, 2011.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff closed his business due to a business depression while operating the packing horse around 2008.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff acquired the gas price claim (hereinafter “gas price claim”) in arrears at the time of operating the packing horse, and was sentenced to the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 201Gaso673297, Nov. 23, 2011 that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) 1,130,060 won per annum from September 20, 2008 to October 26, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

C. Meanwhile, around 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Suwon District Court Decision 2008Hadan6852, 2008 Ma6849, and received immunity from the above court on May 24, 2011, and the said immunity became final and conclusive on June 9, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision to grant immunity on bankruptcy”). [The grounds for recognition: Each entry (including each number), the evidence of subparagraphs A 2 through 4 (including each number), and the substantial facts in this Court]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff paid the gas price at the time of closing the packing horse. As such, the instant gas price liability was already extinguished by repayment.

Even if the unpaid gas price remains.

Even if the decision of immunity on bankruptcy of this case becomes final and conclusive against the plaintiff, the defendant's claim against the transferee based on the decision of this case was exempted.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above claim had already been extinguished due to repayment prior to the judgment is in conflict with the res judicata of the final judgment and needs to be examined further, given that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the gas price claim and rendered a favorable judgment.