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

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed an application for the payment order of loans against the principal debtor, the Plaintiff’s wife E and the Plaintiff, a joint surety, for the payment order of the loans with the Goyang District Court 2008Guj4753, Nov. 11, 2008, “E and the Plaintiff jointly and severally agreed to D, for the amount of KRW 52,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from August 26, 2008 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant bonds”). The payment order was issued, and the above payment order was finalized on December 3, 2008.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the District Court Decision 2009Hau746, 2009Hau746, 746, and was granted immunity from the above court on May 28, 2010. The above immunity became final and conclusive on June 15, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”). However, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant claim in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the said application.

C. The Defendant acquired the instant claim from D.

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the claim of this case was not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith, and thus, the Plaintiff was exempted from liability for the claim of this case according to the immunity decision of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.

B. (1) Determination (1) “A claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, has not been entered in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, Article 566 subparag. 7