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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On January 15, 2012, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “previous payment order”) with the Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea98658, and the above court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 18,00,000 and KRW 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the payment order to the Plaintiff, to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “previous payment order”). The above payment order was delivered to the Defendant on May 27, 2008, and became final and conclusive on June 11, 2008.

B. The reason for requesting the previous payment order is that the defendant does not pay the above amount after the issuance of 3 million won of the family check dated April 2, 2001 and 15 million won of the promissory note dated April 19, 2001 as the price for the goods of Seodaemun-gu. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the above amount.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for bankruptcy and immunity (hereinafter “instant application for bankruptcy and exemption”) and the decision to grant immunity on December 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) was finalized on December 9, 2014. The Plaintiff’s list of creditors of the bankruptcy and exemption cases does not include the Plaintiff’s claim based on the previous payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant lawsuit was filed for the extension of the prescription period of the Plaintiff’s previous payment order, and the Defendant, when filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, failed in bad faith to perform the obligation due to the previous payment order against the Plaintiff. Therefore, exemption from liability is not allowed.

B. Defendant’s bankruptcy and exemption application of this case did not err in bad faith in the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant’s obligation based on the previous payment order was exempted.

The plaintiff applied for the previous payment order after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the product price claim.