1. The defendant's judgment of Gwangju District Court 2009 Ghana8371 has an executory power over loan claims against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the Gwangju District Court 2009Gaso8371, and the above court held on November 27, 2009 that "the plaintiff shall pay 10,000,000 won and 5% per annum from March 21, 2005 to November 5, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge (hereinafter “instant application for bankruptcy and discharge”) with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2012Hadan120, 2012Ma1120, and the said court decided the Plaintiff’s exemption on September 13, 2012, and the said decision of exemption became final and conclusive on the 28th of the same month.

C. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim under the instant judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”) in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for bankruptcy and exemption.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy 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 instant decision of exemption.

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

In regard to this, the defendant was aware of the existence of the claim in this case, such as the plaintiff promising to repay the debt in the currency with the defendant, and did not enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, the claim in this case based on the judgment in this case cannot be asserted as non-exempt claim.