1. The decision is based on the Busan District Court Decision 2006Gaso246269 against the plaintiff of Busan 2 mutual savings bank; and

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 1994, the foreign exchange credit card company received a provisional attachment order of 94Kadan17016 dated 13, 1994 with respect to the Plaintiff’s credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff (the part of the claim was divided into C and D land, and the part was not divided into C and D land; hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). On May 17, 1996, it was affirmed that it received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that the Suwon District Court rendered a claim for the transfer payment claim against the Plaintiff, and that “the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay to KRW 3,983,330 of the KRW 5,981 and 3,983,330 of this case’s damages for delay.”

B. The claim against the Plaintiff of a foreign exchange credit card company was transferred in sequence to the Defendant on May 21, 2004 through a limited liability company specializing in the fifth securitization of the E.S. Asset Exchange Card, Busan 2 Mutual Savings Bank, and August 26, 201, and each time the notification of transfer was made.

C. Meanwhile, Busan District Court Decision 2006Gaso246269 decided on July 4, 2006 rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff that "3,983,330 won and damages for delay are paid."

(hereinafter “instant final judgment”) D.

On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for debt settlement with the effect that the Defendant is exempt from the remainder of the debt under the condition of repayment of KRW 2,300,000 out of the debt pursuant to the instant final judgment, and around that time, the Defendant approved the said application for debt settlement.

(hereinafter “instant contract”) e.

In filing an application for debt settlement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall restore the full amount of the exempted amount in cases where the property is additionally discovered in addition to the asset discovered below at the time of debt exemption and where the act of transferring the property right to a third party is discovered with knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee among the previous property owned by the Plaintiff, and estimate the additional property and the fraudulent act.