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

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking reimbursement from the Incheon District Court Branch Branch No. 2012 tea 4638, which was served on the Plaintiff on June 8, 2012, and the payment order became final and conclusive on June 23, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court (In Incheon District Court Decision 2018Hadan100593, 2018Hadan10593, 2018Hadan10593, hereinafter “instant application for immunity”); and on January 9, 2019, the exemption from immunity became final and conclusive on January 25, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as "the decision to grant immunity of this case").

At the time of the application for immunity, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim based on the instant payment order in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there was a lot of demand notes sent by creditors while transferring and taking over the instant payment order, so it was difficult to accurately memory the creditors, and the Defendant’s claim was omitted in the creditors’ list because it was not aware of the process of selling old claims at the time of the application for immunity of this case.

Since the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the defendant from the creditor list, the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant and damages for delay also have the effect of immunity.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

B. Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion was served with the original copy of the instant payment order, and that he received several calls and messages from the Defendant even before the instant application for exemption, the Plaintiff did not, despite being aware of the existence of obligations against the Defendant, enter the Defendant’s claim in the creditor list by intention or negligence.

Therefore, the defendant's claims constitute non-exempt claims.

3. Determination

(a) relevant legal principles;