A. On December 23, 2010, the Defendant filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff under this Court No. 2010 tea3802, and “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 10,000,000 with interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day on which the payment order was served to the day of complete payment.” The above payment order was served on January 24, 201, and confirmed on February 8, 2011.

B. On the other hand, on March 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court (Seoul District Court 2007Hadan3543, 2007Ma3579), and on January 31, 2008, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

C. At the time of receiving the decision to grant immunity of the instant case, the list of creditors did not indicate the Defendant’s claim.

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

2. Determination

A. Any property claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor as to the judgment on the cause of the claim, that is, the bankruptcy claim shall be exempt from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, even if the immunity decision on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, and is not entered in the list of creditors.

According to the above facts, the defendant's claim of this case is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the decision to grant immunity against the plaintiff loses its executive force upon the confirmation of the decision to grant immunity, barring special circumstances, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff cannot be permitted.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion is purported to the effect that the exemption order of this case does not extend to the claim based on the payment order of this case, since the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the claim of this case from the creditor list.