A. The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of the acquisition amount against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 tea283030, and on December 30, 2015, the payment order became final and conclusive to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 29,802,953 and damages for delay for the amount of KRW 7,613,780.”

B. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by Suwon District Court 2015Hadan5436, and the decision was finalized on September 14, 2016 upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity on August 30, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the list of creditors in the above bankruptcy and immunity case contains a total of 10 claims such as the National Card Co., Ltd., but the claims based on the above payment order are omitted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, as long as the plaintiff was granted immunity, the plaintiff is exempted from the responsibility for the claim based on the payment order of this case, and the above claim loses the power and executive power of filing a lawsuit with ordinary claims, so the defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

B. On this issue, the defendant asserts that the claim based on the payment order of this case is a non-exempt claim because the plaintiff, the debtor, maliciously, did not enter in the creditor list.

The term “claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to the case where a debtor knows the existence of a claim before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of a claim, even though he was negligent in not knowing the existence of a claim, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act even if he was

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). In this case, Party A1.