1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2014 Ghana649355 dated November 25, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 11, 2020, the decision to grant immunity was rendered against the Plaintiff (Cheongju District Court 2019:321), and July 1, 2020, which became final and conclusive on July 1, 2020. Of the claim KRW 16 million stated in the creditor list, the Defendant’s claim was not included.

B. On November 13, 2014, the Defendant, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da6493565, “the Plaintiff,” filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 2,50,000 of self-driving charges due to a motor vehicle accident of D Driving on October 7, 2012, as an owner of an automobile, and damages for delay thereof. Accordingly, the decision on performance recommendation as stated in paragraph (1) of the Disposition was served on the Plaintiff’s spouse who is a cohabitant on December 19, 2014, and became final and conclusive on January 3, 2015.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A claim on the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor for the determination of the cause of the claim shall be exempt from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act unless the decision to grant immunity against the bankrupt falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, even though it is not recorded in the list of creditors;

Since the Defendant’s claim on the decision of performance recommendation stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the Plaintiff is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff, and the decision of immunity against the Plaintiff is finalized and thus loses its executive force, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the Plaintiff is not permissible, and ex officio, the Defendant’s claim is accepted, and the Defendant’s provisional disposition of suspension of compulsory execution is ordered until this judgment becomes final and conclusive

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's claim falls under non-exempt claims because the plaintiff did not enter his claim in the list of creditors in bad faith in the case of immunity.

The debtor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.