The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court on September 7, 2012 is denied based on the payment order of 2012 tea8361.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant asserted as indicated in the attached Form No. 2012 tea8361, and filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of the amount indicated in the attached Form No. 5, and the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) issued as of September 7, 2012, which received all the Defendant’s claims, was finalized on October 5, 2012.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s decision was finalized July 29, 2016 upon receipt of immunity on July 14, 2016 in the case of filing an application for adjudication of bankruptcy with the Gwangju District Court 2015do108 and the 2015Hadan108Hadan108, and the decision became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and immunity procedures include only the claims of D and E companies, and

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant payment order was discharged.

Therefore, compulsory execution under the above payment order should not be permitted.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's claim on the payment order of this case is a claim that is not entered in the creditor list in bad faith under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Thus, this decision does not affect the decision of immunity. 2) The decision of this case is examined. The time when the plaintiff was granted a loan from the original D Association and the defendant subrogated for the above loan obligation of this case, and the payment order of this case at the time of the payment order of this case, the plaintiff had another obligation against D Association, and the loan obligation of the defendant subrogated by the defendant was related to D Association, and there is a possibility that the plaintiff could not have known the defendant's claim on the payment order of this case. In addition, according to the consultation submitted by the defendant, the defendant's employee currency with the plaintiff prior to the decision of immunity.