1. The defendant's decision on the loan case against the plaintiff by Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2006Gaso231091 Decided January 25, 2007.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2006Gaso231091, and the above court proceeded on the date of pleading on January 25, 2007 without going through service by public notice, and then rendered a judgment with the purport that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from September 27, 2006 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and on March 3, 2007, the above judgment became final and conclusive.

B. According to the instant judgment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff with the Suwon District Court No. 2008No340, Jul. 30, 2008 for a compulsory execution against the said corporeal movables, and received one million won of the proceeds of the sale of corporeal movables at the said auction procedure

C. On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Hadan2144, 2012Ha2144, and was declared bankrupt and granted immunity from the above court on July 20, 2012, and the said decision became final and conclusive on August 9, 2012.

At the time of application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation of the instant judgment against the Defendant in the list of creditors.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On May 15, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.3 million to the Defendant’s wife C (Provided, That one million won among them is the name of traffic accident agreement), and paid KRW 1 million to the Defendant on July 30, 2008, and thereby, did not enter the obligation of this case at the time of the application for bankruptcy and immunity in the list of creditors with knowledge that the obligation of this case was resolved in full, and did not intentionally omit it, and thus, the claim of this case was exempted from liability. (ii) Even if the claim of this case constituted non-exempt claim, the part repaid as above was extinguished.

B. Defendant 1 was aware of the existence of the instant judgment claim.