1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the judgment on the loan case No. 2005Gau7131 (No. 2005Gau71).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the loan loan case of this court 2005Gapo71331, which the defendant filed against the plaintiff, the above court held on October 25, 2005 that "the plaintiff shall pay 9,450,000 won and damages for delay to the defendant" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case was delivered to the plaintiff on December 6, 2005 by public notice and confirmed on December 20, 2005.

(hereinafter referred to as “the claim of the instant judgment”) is the claim of the instant case. (b)

On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and released from immunity as Busan District Court 2016Hadan572, 2016Ma572, and on March 11, 2017, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.

In the above bankruptcy and immunity cases, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff was not entered in the claim of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport prior to pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The claim on the property arising before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, i.e., the bankruptcy claim does not fall under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act. Examining the above facts of recognition in accordance with these legal principles, the claim in this case is a claim on the property arising from the cause that occurred before the bankruptcy is declared and its immunity is determined by the confirmation of the immunity of the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

B. The defendant's assertion is insufficient to recognize the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to the purport that the plaintiff did not enter the claim in the list of creditors in bad faith with knowledge of the existence of the claim in this case at the time of exemption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.