1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan19948.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After having taken over the principal and interest claim against the Plaintiff of the Industrial Bank of Korea, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming the amount of loan.

(Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan19948).(b)

On September 14, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 5,083,070 won and 22,69,563 won with interest of 20% per annum from March 7, 2010 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court (2010Hadan18626, 2010, 18626). At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff omitted the description of the obligations owed to the Bank.

On September 15, 2011 and December 28, 2011, the above court declared a bankruptcy and rendered a decision to grant immunity to the plaintiff, and each of the above decisions became final and conclusive as it is.

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

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that, in the course of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not recognize that there was a debt to the Industrial Bank of Korea or the defendant, and omitted the Industrial Bank of Korea or the defendant in the list of creditors, the defendant's debt against the defendant was also exempted from the above immunity decision, and eventually, the compulsory execution according to the judgment

In regard to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of an obligation against the Industrial Bank of Korea or the Defendant at the time of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant constitutes “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”). Therefore, the obligation against the Defendant ought to be excluded from the scope of immunity.