1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the judgment in the Incheon District Court Decision 2006Gapo231314 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 3, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to the judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 5,143,600 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from December 31, 2006 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), which was filed against the plaintiff, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On July 22, 2008, the Plaintiff was granted immunity in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da45822, 2007Hadan45794, and the said immunity became final and conclusive on August 6, 2008.

C. In the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim based on the instant judgment in the list of creditors.

On November 9, 2016, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s bank deposit claims, etc. by the Incheon District Court 2016TTT No. 51855 on November 9, 2016. Upon filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant submitted a written withdrawal of the application to the executing court on March 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, claims based on the judgment of this case are bankruptcy claims arising due to causes arising before bankruptcy is declared, and the effect of immunity on the plaintiff pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is limited to claims based on the judgment of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

(1) The judgment of this case remains effective even if the defendant withdraws the application for the seizure and collection order based on the judgment of this case. Thus, the plaintiff can seek the exclusion of executive force through the lawsuit of objection). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.