1. The Daegu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013 Ghana4582 decided March 26, 2014, against the Plaintiff of Han Capital Co., Ltd.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) 1) One Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “one Capital”);

(2) On March 26, 2014, the Seoul District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff shall pay to One Capital the amount of 26,95,130 won and the amount of 11,936,540 won per annum 29% per annum from October 22, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2014, the Defendant acquired the loan claim under the said judgment (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”).

Based on the above judgment, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff (221 square meters prior to C, 526 square meters prior to D) as Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch B, Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch B, and received a decision to commence the auction on April 11, 2016 from the above court.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted immunity as the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Hadan5771, 2013Ma5771, 5771, and the decision of immunity became final and conclusive on March 3, 2015. However, the list of creditors prepared in the bankruptcy declaration and exemption procedure as above is omitted from the claim of this case. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5 (including the provisional number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

B. Determination 1) A claim on the property of a debtor arising from a cause that occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy is a bankruptcy claim (Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and a debtor who has been exempted from liability appears to have been exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except for dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure (main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act). In light of the above provisions of the above Act, although the defendant's claim in this case exists in itself, the defendant's claim in this case cannot be enforced against the plaintiff who is the bankruptcy debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015).