청구이의 소
1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant's assertion against the plaintiff.
Facts of recognition
On May 10, 2010, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”).
On June 9, 2011, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court No. 201 tea47602 to seek the payment of the above amount of money, and on June 17, 2011, the payment order that accepts the Defendant’s application (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued and finalized on July 8, 201.
The Plaintiff was granted immunity on April 23, 2012 in Suwon District Court Decision 2010Da9461, 2010Hadan9461, and the decision became final and conclusive on May 8, 2012. At the time, the Defendant was not written in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's overall purport of the argument, the judgment of the court below as to the ground of claim for exclusion of enforcement force of the instant payment order, the claim of this case was exempted
Therefore, compulsory execution under the payment order of this case should not be permitted.
(2) If the claim of this case is acknowledged to have been exempted, the argument that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s claim, the assertion that the assignment of claim was invalid, and the argument that the statute of limitations expired expired is no further determined). The gist of the Defendant’s argument is that the claim of this case constitutes a claim that the obligor under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act did not enter in the creditor list in bad faith
Judgment
On the other hand, the facts that the plaintiff submitted in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure are not shown in the list of creditors as mentioned above, but the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole arguments as to the D Co., Ltd., E, and Korea is as follows.