1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012Gaso93429 was conducted based on the judgment on the loan case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 28, 2000, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”) and received a promissory note in the amount equivalent to the said amount from the Plaintiff.

B. On November 4, 2008, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Hadan28493, and on July 30, 2009, upon 2008 the above court Decision 2008Ma28493, and the above declaration of bankruptcy and the decision of immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

The list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff while making bankruptcy and application for immunity did not indicate the defendant's loan claims in this case against the plaintiff.

C. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the instant loan with Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012Da93429, and the said court rendered a judgment on July 23, 2013 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 12 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 18, 2002 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”; and the claim ordering the payment thereof is referred to as “the instant claim”); thereafter, the instant judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

On the other hand, the above court served a copy of the complaint against the plaintiff who did not serve the plaintiff, a notice of the date of pleading, and a certified copy of the judgment by public notice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) If the debtor is decided to grant immunity, any bankruptcy creditor may not perform any compulsory execution on his/her property;

However, since the executive title with respect to the obligation exempted does not automatically lose its effect, the debtor may waive the executive force by filing a lawsuit of objection against the claim.

(see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). The same applies even if a decision of immunity was rendered before the judgment, which is an executive title, became final and conclusive. The issue of whether to grant immunity is sought for the performance of obligation.