1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012J2048.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 4, 2012, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under this Court’s 2012 tea2048, and the said court rendered a payment order against the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 14,258,573 and damages for delay for KRW 4,433,628 among them” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012, and became final and conclusive on July 27, 2012.

B. On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to exempt the Plaintiff from immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) with the Daegu District Court 2018Hagu District Court 2395, 2018Hadan2395, and the said decision became final and conclusive on February 8, 2019.

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure was omitted the bonds under the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant bonds”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the cause of a claim, a claim on the property arising before a declaration of a strike is a bankruptcy claim against a debtor, and a debtor who has been exempted from liability pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act shall be exempted from the liability for all obligations owed to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order is not permissible, barring any special circumstance. The instant claim based on the instant payment order constitutes a bankruptcy claim that occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive after the decision was rendered.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of the instant claim, did not enter it in the list of creditors.