1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a monetary loan agreement No. 1500, 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff, Nonparty E, and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with a notary public No. 1500, Sept. 8, 2009, wherein the Defendant set forth and lent KRW 13.5 million to the Plaintiff and E as interest rate of 49% per annum, and due date of November 16, 2009.

B. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the District Court Nos. 2014Hau3563, 2014 and 3566, and the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff did not enter the claims under the instant authentic deed in the creditors’ list.

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

2. Determination

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “A debtor shall be exempted from all obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “A debtor who has received immunity shall be exempted from all obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditor, except for dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, the effect of immunity shall be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010) unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). However, since a claim against the plaintiff by the defendant under the Notarial Deed against the plaintiff was granted the immunity of this case, the above claim constitutes a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the exemption of this case’s bankruptcy claim becomes void due to the confirmation of the bankruptcy claim, barring special circumstances: