1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Daegu District Court Decision 2004Kadan3419 decided May 12, 2005.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff (former name: C) to refund the lease deposit against the plaintiff (former name: 94Gadan2394). On June 9, 1994, the defendant was sentenced to the judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 37,50,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from May 4, 1994 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On the other hand, at the time of the judgment above, the plaintiff was in prison.

To extend the prescription period of the above judgment claim, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch of 2004Gadan3419, May 12, 2005, which stated that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 37,500,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from May 4, 1994 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2005.

On the other hand, the above case was proceeded by public notice on the ground that the plaintiff's whereabouts are unknown.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant debt”) against the Defendant

B. Around October 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption and received a decision of exemption (hereinafter “instant decision of exemption”) from the Daegu District Court 2007Da8620 on October 20, 2008. The instant decision of exemption became final and conclusive as of November 6, 2008.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing for bankruptcy and exemption from liability did not include the instant obligation.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 5, Gap's evidence 7, Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the exemption decision of this case does not affect the obligation of this case, since it did not state the obligation of this case in the list of creditors and applied for bankruptcy and exemption.

Dor, the Defendant, at the time of the Plaintiff’s petition for bankruptcy and exemption, shall exist.