1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a loan loan agreement with the Defendant for overdue credit card payments to the Defendant. As of November 28, 2017, the amount of overdue loan is KRW 34,05,335 in total, the amount of principal and interest, overdue interest and incidental debt amount of KRW 13,727,127 in total, and KRW 20,328,208 in total, the overdue interest rate is 29.9% per annum, and the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the father of the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for the above loan obligations against the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

B. On July 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with Suwon District Court 2005Da18406, and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan, and thereafter, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on July 21, 2010 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity on July 6, 2010.

C. The Defendant applied for the payment order against the Deceased as Suwon District Court 2007 tea7677. On December 4, 2007, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the said payment order to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,055,335 won and the amount of KRW 13,727,127 per annum from November 29, 2007 to the date of complete payment. The above payment order was finalized on March 25, 2008.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.

On June 7, 2012, the deceased died on June 7, 2012, and on September 2, 2016, the defendant filed an application for the respective succession execution clause against the deceased’s successor and C with respect to each inheritance share of the instant payment order with the Suwon District Court on September 2, 2016, and the plaintiff received a certified copy of the said succession execution clause on October 10, 2016.

E. On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a qualified acceptance report with the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2016Mo797 Decided 12, 2016, which was accepted on February 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, 2 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied, since he/she was granted immunity decision.

However, even if the debtor obtains immunity, any claim that has not been entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors is not exempted from liability, and the debtor is able to recover.