On November 27, 2018, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2018 Ghana 603190 decided against the defendant's plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff by the court 2018Ga Office 603190, and the instant case was conducted by serving public notice, and this court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 27, 2018, that “the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant regarding the entire amount of KRW 9,162,174 and the delayed damages therefrom. The instant judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “instant enforcement title”).

B. On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Bankruptcy Court, and on September 9, 2019, the above court decided to grant the Plaintiff’s exemption (in case of 2018, book 3809, book 2018, the lower part of 2018, the bankruptcy court), and the Defendant’s claim was not stated in the list

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant enforcement title constitutes a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which is a claim based on the property arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and is a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debt Rehabilitation Act”), and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability should be exempted pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation in around 2013, which was the transfer of the above case of application for exemption from bankruptcy, and the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s enforcement title at the time of bankruptcy, and thus, the Defendant omitted the Defendant’s claim in bad faith in the list of creditors at the time of

B. Therefore, according to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation by including the Defendant in the list of creditors with the Seoul bankruptcy court on November 5, 2013.