1. Seoul Central District Court 2008 Ghana 1521792 against the Plaintiff of a promotion mutual savings bank

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Fact-finding 1) The promoting mutual savings bank filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. for a loan claim as Seoul Central District Court 2008 Ghana1521792, and on May 2, 2008, the decision on performance recommendation against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”).

(2) The plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption on January 4, 2008, Incheon District Court No. 2008Hadan120, 2008 Ma12121. The above court declared bankrupt on August 7, 2008, and subsequently rendered a decision to grant immunity on November 17, 2008, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on December 2, 2008.

However, the plaintiff did not enter the promotion mutual savings bank in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for bankruptcy and immunity.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 4, 6, 7, Eul 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The right to property arising from the cause before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, that is, the bankruptcy claim, even if the decision to grant immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, is not recorded on the list of creditors, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, is exempt from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same Act.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the claims against the plaintiff by the promotion mutual savings bank on the decision of performance recommendation of this case are claims arising from the causes arising before bankruptcy is declared, and they constitute bankruptcy claims, and they lose its executive force upon the decision of immunity against the plaintiff. Thus, compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case against the plaintiff who is the successor of the promotion mutual savings bank is not allowed.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff constitutes non-exempt claim because the plaintiff was well aware of the existence of the claim in the decision on performance recommendation of this case before the decision on immunity is granted.

(b) the debtor’s rehabilitation and rehabilitation;