1. The Plaintiff’s obligor against the Defendant: The type of the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s claim: Samsung third and January 12, 2017.

1. On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the same claim as the transferee’s debt stated in the main text of paragraph (1) of this Article.

(hereinafter referred to as "claim or Debt in this case"). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Gwangju District Court 2013Hadan1781 and 2013, and obtained a decision of discharge as of January 27, 2014, which became final and conclusive on February 28, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant exemption”).

2) In the process of determining the exemption of this case, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (K&C), and D are missing by the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The obligor for whom a decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive is exempted from all obligations owed to bankruptcy creditors except distribution under bankruptcy proceedings (see the main sentence of Article 565 and Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Therefore, the instant obligation was also exempted from all obligations.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was omitted in bad faith as the Plaintiff knew of the instant claim at the time of the decision to grant immunity, and thus, the instant obligation does not be exempted.

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the creditors' list in bad faith" means a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the creditors' list. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but otherwise, the debtor knows the existence of an obligation.