On April 18, 2012, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as the court of Suwon District Court 2012, the next 2771.

On April 20, 2012, the lower court issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 4,450,007 and KRW 4,317,07 at the rate of 29.9% per annum from April 19, 2012 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 27, 2012, and was finalized on May 12, 2012.

On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on June 9, 2014, upon filing an application for immunity with the lower court at the 4955 and 2013 lower part of 2013, the Suwon District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on immunity”) and the decision on immunity on November 27, 2014 became final and conclusive on December 12, 2014.

The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of applying for bankruptcy and immunity was not indicated in the claim of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and according to the main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act Article 56 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the obligor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from liability for all obligations to the bankrupt obligee except for dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.

According to the above facts of recognition, the claim of this case is a claim arising from the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the decision to grant immunity of this case against the plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff's liability should be deemed exempted.

The Plaintiff submitted a list of ten creditors, including D Co., Ltd. at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity, and it is difficult to find out a clear motive to omit the existence of the instant debt even with knowledge of the existence thereof, and the decision of payment order against the Defendant was served on the Plaintiff’s children, not the Plaintiff, alone.