1. The Defendant’s execution of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gaso23824 Decided May 15, 2013 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 24, 2014, the decision to grant immunity was rendered against the Plaintiff on November 24, 2014 (the Daejeon District Court 2014.2572). On December 9, 2014, the Defendant’s claim was not included in the list of creditors.

B. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da23824, “The Plaintiff, as the debtor on January 31, 2004, filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of money in exchange for the amount of KRW 11,658,296 and KRW 10,354,656 each year from March 26, 2002 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff, as the debtor on January 31, 2004, filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of money in exchange for the amount of KRW 24% each year from March 26, 2002. The instant case was proceeded by service, and the said court sentenced the said judgment on May 15, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

C. On December 27, 2018, Company B transferred its claim against the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the Defendant notified the transfer of the claim at that time.

[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 written judgment stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition against the Plaintiff is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff, and the decision of immunity against the Plaintiff loses its executive force upon the confirmation of the decision of immunity, compulsory execution based on the judgment stated in Paragraph 1 of the Defendant’s Disposition against the Plaintiff is not permissible, and ex officio, the Defendant’s claim is accepted, and the suspension of compulsory execution is ordered, until this judgment becomes final and conclusive in accordance with Articles

3. The defendant's claim against the defendant is judged in bad faith in the case of exemption.