2...

A. On July 31, 2009, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff, etc. for a payment order stating that “the payment of the loan” was “the payment of the loan (Jansan District Court 2009j20032), and the service of a copy, etc. of the complaint against the Plaintiff, etc. was not made on October 5, 2009 (Jansan District Court 2009Dasan366980), and the litigation procedure was eventually proceeded by public notice.

On May 28, 2010, Busan District Court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff et al. shall jointly and severally pay 7.2 million won and damages for delay to the defendant," and the judgment on June 22, 2010 became final and conclusive.

B. On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity against creditors C and 15 (the Changwon District Court 2017:10,200, 2017Hadan10200), and on September 7, 2017, the Changwon District Court issued a immunity on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not recognized as a ground for non-permission of immunity under Article 564(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DR”), and the exemption of immunity became final and conclusive on September 22, 2017.

C. On the other hand, on August 18, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in Busan District Court Decision 2009DaDa366980 Decided August 18, 2017, the Defendant applied for a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim that the Plaintiff is the debtor, the Korean Commercial Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. as the third debtor (Seoul District Court 2017TTTT 7178), and the Changwon District Court rendered a decision citing the seizure and collection order on September 12, 2017, and the original copy of the ruling was served on the Plaintiff on September 22, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity, the Plaintiff asserted that the obligation against the Defendant was exempted as it did not have been intentionally omitted while drawing up the creditor list at the time of filing the application for immunity, and that the Defendant is also liable to the Defendant in bad faith.