1. The defendant's decision on October 7, 2016 against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court's decision on the acquisition fee case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 7, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the assignee fee claim with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Ghana18338, and as a result, the Defendant’s favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) was rendered on October 7, 2016, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On the other hand, on August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt and applied for immunity as Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2016Hadan6268, 2016Ma6268, and was declared bankrupt on March 20, 2017 and was granted immunity on May 23, 2017 and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 to 4

2. According to the above facts of recognition, a defendant's claim based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff is a property claim arising from a cause which occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy and constitutes a bankruptcy claim and the above decision of immunity became final and conclusive, and thus, the plaintiff's liability is exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Therefore

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's claim in the list of creditors in bad faith in the bankruptcy and immunity procedure.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the list of creditors.

However, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision.

The fact that the defendant's claim is omitted in the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy and exemption procedures is not disputed between the parties.

However, as to whether the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant and did not enter it in the list of creditors.