1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff has the executive force of No. 518 of the Clegal Office certificate in 2007.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 7, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed 4 million won from the Defendant at interest rate of 66% per annum, due date of payment on June 7, 2007 (hereinafter “the obligation of the instant loan”). In the event that the Plaintiff did not repay the debt of the instant loan, there is no objection to compulsory execution immediately.

‘Notarial Deed' as stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article is ‘Notarial Deed' of this case.

was drawn up.

B. On March 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge with the Busan District Court Decision 201Hadan594, 201Ma594, the Busan District Court rendered a ruling of bankruptcy and revocation on June 28, 2011; and “the immunity exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption from September 29, 201” from the above court.

(C) At the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation of the instant loan in the creditor list at the time of filing an application for exemption. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim is money and valuables provided by the Plaintiff as a means of soliciting, inducing, arranging, or coercioning the act of prostitution, and thus, it constitutes illegal consideration, as well as is exempted from the responsibility by the decision on immunity of this case, compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed is not allowed.

B. The Defendant asserted that the instant loan was used as the Plaintiff’s entertainment tavern prepaid, and that the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the instant loan and omitted by intention or negligence at the time of the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and application for immunity, and thus, the Defendant did not exempt the Defendant from its liability as it constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

3. Determination

(a) the debtor’s rehabilitation;