1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of KRW 5,00,000 for loans against the Plaintiff and damages for delay thereof with the Incheon District Court (Case Number: Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gau174627). On December 17, 2012, the Incheon District Court decided to make a performance recommendation ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 5,000,000 and the damages for delay thereof to the Defendant. The said performance recommendation decision was served on the Defendant on January 4, 2013, and became final and conclusive on January 19, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision of execution recommendation”). B.

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt in the Incheon District Court 2016Hadan1362 case, and on February 15, 2017, upon 2016 the same court, the Plaintiff was granted immunity from the 1361 exemption case. The above immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on immunity”). The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff according to the instant decision on performance recommendation in the creditor’s list in the above bankruptcy and exemption application case.

C. The Plaintiff did not assert that there is no debt based on the instant decision of performance recommendation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was granted decision to grant immunity from the instant case.

Although the claim following the decision on performance recommendation of this case is not indicated in the list of creditors of the above case of application for bankruptcy and exemption, this is merely an omission by negligence of the Plaintiff in respect of the existence of the claim of this case at the time of application, not an intentional omission in the list of creditors.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above debt owed to the Defendant was exempted from liability under Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and thus, based on the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation.