The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gaso568044 decided January 9, 2014 rendered against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 2,795,850 (hereinafter “related lawsuit”) pursuant to subrogation by the insurer as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da568044 (hereinafter “instant indemnity”). The said court rendered a judgment on January 9, 2014 that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 2,795,850 to the Defendant and its delay damages to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

The original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff by means of service by public notice and became final and conclusive at that time.

B. On the other hand, on June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption from the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Hadan1087 and 2017Ma1083 and applied for immunity from the above court on October 19, 2017 (hereinafter “instant immunity from immunity”). The said exemption from immunity was finalized on November 3, 2017. The Plaintiff did not enter the details of the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the said bankruptcy and exemption from immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant for reimbursement of this case against the Defendant was exempted from its liability by the decision of immunity of this case, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion presented the contents of demanding the payment of the amount of indemnity three times before filing the related lawsuit to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's spouse received the above contents of proof two times or more, and it is deemed that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the claim of indemnity in this case at the time of the application for immunity.

However, without any special reason, the plaintiff is only the defendant.