2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Savings Bank”) filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking loans from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gu28208, May 24, 2006, which received the payment order from the above court to “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 58% per annum from August 12, 2002 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized on August 26, 2006.

B. On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 2009, 24599, 2009Hadan24599, and on October 19, 2010, the decision of immunity became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “the decision of immunity”). The above bankruptcy and exemption application were filed at the time of filing an application for exemption.

did not enter the claims described in the list of creditors.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a loan claim based on the instant payment order with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da3751323, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the loan claim. In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted prior to the instant lawsuit that the Defendant’s claim was exempted from liability, but the aforementioned defense was not accepted. The said court rendered a judgment on July 21, 2016 that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 22,879,233 won and its 3,000,000 won with the interest of 49% per annum from February 17, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and facts which are obvious to the court

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant's claims arising from the payment order of this case against the plaintiff constitute bankruptcy claims, and since the defendant's exemption decision was made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "Act"), the defendant's exemption was special.