1. The defendant's judgment with executory power in Seoul Northern District Court 2005 Ghana309737 against the plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence No. 1 to 4.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the promissory note (Seoul Northern District Court 2005Gaso309737). The lawsuit was initiated by service, and the above court rendered a judgment on February 14, 2006 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,500,000 with interest of KRW 20% per annum from January 1, 2006 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on March 3, 2006.

B. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court and was declared bankrupt by the same court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) and the decision to grant immunity was finalized on April 16, 2013 upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) from the same court (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant and the instant decision claim in the list of creditors at the time of filing for bankruptcy and exemption.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the course of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not recognize that the defendant had a debt to the defendant, and omitted the defendant in the creditor list, the debt to the defendant against the defendant is also exempted from the above immunity decision, and ultimately, compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case should be dismissed.

In regard to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time when the Plaintiff filed an individual bankruptcy and application for immunity. As such, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and accordingly, the obligation against the Defendant should be excluded from the scope of immunity.

B. Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act