A. On June 29, 2011, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the user fee for the credit card used by the Plaintiff under the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 201 tea3971, and on June 29, 201, the said court issued an order to order the Defendant to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 29.9% per annum for KRW 11,56,362 and KRW 11,301,786 from June 10, 2011 to the date of full payment, and the payment order to pay KRW 17,580 for demand procedure expenses (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was finalized as is.

B. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on January 18, 201 by filing a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Hau5381, 201Hau5381, 201, and 5381, and was granted immunity on June 15, 2012. The Plaintiff did not indicate claims based on the instant payment order in the list of creditors of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant payment order constituted a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), which is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability against the Plaintiff ought to be exempted pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

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

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. While the Plaintiff was served with the instant payment order while proceeding with the case of bankruptcy and exemption, and the Plaintiff was present on the date specified in the case of specification of property requested by the Defendant, but the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim in bad faith in the list of creditors at the time of bankruptcy immunity.

B. Each evidence and Gap's 5.