1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan under this court’s 2005 Ghana694, and this court rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the Plaintiff, and the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on May 10, 2005.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge with the Daegu District Court Decision 2008Hadan2910 (Declaration of Bankruptcy) and 2008Ma2910 (Immunity). The above court decided to grant exemption on November 14, 2008 against the Plaintiff, and the decision to grant exemption became final and conclusive on December 2, 2008.

C. In applying for bankruptcy and exemption as above, the Plaintiff submitted the creditors list to the bankruptcy court, and the list omitted the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s decision on the instant performance recommendation.

2. At the time of submitting the Plaintiff’s list of creditors, there was an omission of knowledge of the Defendant’s claims based on the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation, and it did not appear to have been written in the list of creditors in bad faith.

Therefore, since immunity is not effective for the defendant's claims based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation of this case should be denied.

3. The Plaintiff did not know the existence of the obligation according to the instant decision of performance recommendation and did not appear to have any circumstances to deem that the obligation was extinguished. Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have omitted entry in the list of creditors due to the instant timely exploitation or care, even if he knows the existence of the obligation.

In addition, on April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff respondeded to the loan case of this court 2015da765, which was instituted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in order to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription due to the instant performance recommendation decision, and even though the judgment was rendered with the same content as the instant performance recommendation decision, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment.