2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking “5,681,000 won paid as insurance money to the Plaintiff, etc. and damages for delay thereof” as the Seoul Central District Court’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant received the payment order with the same content (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on October 30, 2013. This was served on March 4, 2014 on the Defendant’s resident registration place to the Plaintiff and became final and conclusive on March 19, 2014.

B. On the other hand, on December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan1003, 2015Ma11003, the Plaintiff, following the declaration of bankruptcy, was granted immunity on September 7, 2016 (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”). This became final and conclusive on September 28, 2016. The Plaintiff did not indicate the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff on the instant payment order against the Plaintiff in the list of creditors submitted in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the plaintiff neglected to receive and neglect the payment order of this case, which is a high school student, and was unaware of it," and thus, in the decision to grant immunity of this case, the plaintiff did not enter the claim based on the payment order of this case in bad faith, even if the defendant omitted the claim based on the payment order of this case in the list of creditors."

The defendant asserts that "a claim based on the payment order of this case is not only a damage claim caused by an intentional tort, but also a claim not entered in the list of creditors in good faith, not a bad faith, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a claim not entered in the list of creditors, and thus, regardless of the decision to grant immunity of this case under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "

(b) Dried stoves;