1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the decision of performance recommendation made by the Suwon District Court 2004Gapo329818.

Facts of recognition

On December 21, 2004, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with Suwon District Court 2004Gapo329818. On January 3, 2005, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to KRW 10,00,000 and the amount equivalent to 36% per annum from August 23, 1999 to the full payment date” (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on February 17, 2005.

On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court. On December 30, 2009, the same court decided to exempt the Plaintiff from liability as the Seoul Central District Court No. 35129 and 2008Hadan35129. This decision became final and conclusive on January 14, 2010.

[Based on the facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff, which became the grounds for the claim of the recommendation of this case, constitutes a bankruptcy claim as a claim arising before the plaintiff is declared bankrupt, and thus, the decision of immunity becomes final and conclusive, shall be exempted from all obligations under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

As the defendant's assertion did not state his claim based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case in bad faith on the list of creditors under the procedure for declaration of bankruptcy and exemption, the defendant asserts that the claim based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case does not have the effect of exemption pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant

Rather, in full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence No. 4 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s mental health status at the time of receiving the instant performance recommendation decision.