1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. As of July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was liable for the principal amounting to KRW 18,108,384 as a guarantor to the credit card used by B to the Industrial Bank of Korea, as of July 1, 2016, and the Defendant was transferred from the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “instant claim assignment”). On June 2016, the Defendant received the instant claim transfer from the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “instant claim transfer”).
B. On August 24, 2017, Sungwon District Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the effect that “The debtor (the plaintiff in this case) shall pay to the creditor (the defendant in this case) 18,108,384 won and the expenses for demand procedure at the rate of 15% per annum from September 30, 201 to September 30, 201.” The said payment order was served on the plaintiff on September 13, 2017 and became final and conclusive on September 28, 2017.
C. Meanwhile, around June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 10090 and 2017Hadan109000, and was granted immunity from the above court (hereinafter “instant immunity”). On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff was granted immunity from the said court (hereinafter “instant immunity”).
On February 20, 2018, the decision to grant immunity was finalized on February 20, 2018, and the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the instant claim in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for immunity.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
A. On the ground of the judgment on the ground of claim 1, the plaintiff did not have a duty to repay the above claim since it was not effective as the transfer of claim was not notified by the Industrial Bank of Korea or the defendant which was the original creditor.
or compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is unlawful.
According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, it is recognized that the notice of the assignment of claims in this case was not served on the plaintiff.
However, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4.