A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea3563, and on May 11, 2010, the above court issued a payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 10,845,627 won and the amount of KRW 4,597,720 calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 4, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was served on the Plaintiff (son who is a resident) on June 26, 2010 and became final and conclusive on July 13, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). B. The claim under the instant payment order is a claim (hereinafter “instant claim”).

The defendant received the claim attachment and collection order from the Seoul Northern District Court 2010TTT2705 as the debtor, and the above claim attachment and collection order were served on the plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da33109, 2009Hadan33019, and the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) on December 6, 2010, and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.

The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the above declaration of bankruptcy and exemption procedure was not indicated as a creditor by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the claim in this case is a property claim arising from a cause arising before bankruptcy is declared and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the plaintiff was exempted from liability for the claim in this case upon the decision to grant immunity (see the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case shall not be permitted, and the defendant sent a guide and court document to the plaintiff that can confirm the fact of the obligation several times before and after the lawsuit taken over, but the address of the plaintiff's resident registration is actually the domicile