1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation is based on the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation on June 9, 201, the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the price for goods under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 201da48975, and the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”) that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 8,537,000 to the Defendant and the delay damages therefrom,” and the decision on performance recommendation of this case was finalized on July 21, 201.

B. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption (hereinafter “application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption”) with Suwon District Court Decision 2015Hau2046, 2015Ma2046, and the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on May 19, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability in accordance with the instant performance recommendation decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the claim in this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and thus, the Plaintiff was exempted from the liability to repay the claim under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act according to the decision on immunity in this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff did not enter the claim in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of the claim in this case in bad faith. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim non-exempt claims based on the decision of performance recommendation in this case.

B. Determination 1: Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act