A. C on August 23, 2002, at the interest rate of 12.9% per annum ( maximum of 19% per annum) from the Defendant, and received a loan on August 23, 2007 with a maturity of 12.9% per annum ( maximum of 19% per annum), and the Plaintiff, the spouse of C, as joint and several, guaranteed C’s loan obligations against the Defendant around August 2007.

B. After that, on December 4, 2019, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff to the effect that the Defendant would claim the guaranteed debt amount under the Seoul Southern District Court 2019j.172700, and on December 9, 2019, the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 9, 2019, stating that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 20,828,449, and KRW 7,071,111 per annum from December 3, 2019 to the date of full payment.”

On December 27, 2019, the instant payment order was finalized as it was, because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant payment order.

C. On the other hand, on November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Changwon District Court No. 2013Hadan1678, 2013, and 1681, and was granted a decision to grant immunity from the above court on June 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 20, 2014.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the case of petition for bankruptcy and immunity was not indicated by the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The exemption of liability by decision on the cause of the claim from immunity is, regardless of the existence and scope of the claim itself, a cause for exclusion of enforcement force at the stage of enforcement mainly, regardless of the existence and scope of the claim itself, and thus, the claim is thereafter not asserted in the proceeding of enforcement by a final and conclusive judgment.