1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch Decision 200Kadan1644 decided on the part of the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In 200, the Defendant asserted that “the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 to C on March 28, 1998, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan claim against C,” and applied for a payment order with the Plaintiff and C as the debtor.

(J) The plaintiff raised an objection to the above payment order and implemented it as a lawsuit against the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch. 200 tea79)

(C) On May 18, 200, the court rendered a judgment on May 18, 2000 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 30 million won and interest rate of 25% per annum from January 14, 2000 to the day of full payment," and the judgment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") became final and conclusive on June 15, 200.

B. On November 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court 2006Hadan9840, Daegu District Court 2006Hadan9840, 2006Ma10322). The court declared bankrupt on June 11, 2007, and rendered a decision of immunity on September 28, 2007 (hereinafter “instant decision of immunity”). The instant decision of immunity became final and conclusive on October 13, 2007.

At the time the Plaintiff entered in the list of creditors is Korea Credit Management Company, Dongyang Capital Company, Korea Asset Management Corporation, Desiramo Asset Management Specialized Credit Company, Samsung Life Insurance Company, Samsung F&T Company, Ktwitel Company, and Marine Identity, etc., and the claims based on the instant judgment (hereinafter “instant claims”) were not entered in the list of creditors or claims.

C. On January 2009, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order to the Daegu District Court (Tgu District Court 2009TTTTTTTT) on the title of execution (the Daegu District Court 2009TTTTTTTT), and completed the execution at that time after receiving the seizure and collection order on January 22, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the immunity decision of this case is based on the obligor’s rehabilitation and bankruptcy.