1. The defendant's lawsuit against the plaintiff was filed on April 22, 2008 in the Chuncheon District Court 2008Da334, the East Sea Court 2008.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the reimbursement amount (hereinafter “instant claim”) with the Gangseo-gu District Court 2008 tea34, the Dong-si Branch Court of the Chuncheon District Court, and the above court rendered a decision citing the payment order on April 22, 2008 (hereinafter “instant payment order order”), and the said decision was finalized around that time.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity with the Chuncheon District Court 2007Hadan1771 as the Chuncheon District Court 2007Hadan1771 as the 2007Hadan1774 as the 1774 as the 2007Hadan. After being declared bankrupt by the above court, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on May 23, 2008

(hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, and evidence 7 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and as seen earlier, the decision on the immunity of this case against the plaintiff became final and conclusive. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act") provides that "the exempted debtor shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure." The claim of this case constitutes a property claim arising from the cause that occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and thus, the plaintiff is exempted from its responsibility for the claim of this case against the plaintiff by the defendant.

Therefore, the instant claim has lost the executive force with ordinary claims.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s decision of the instant payment order cannot be allowed without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.