1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 14, 2009, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment order of the acquisition amount (Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea 123887).

The above payment order was issued on December 21, 2009 and served on December 29, 2009 on the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not raise an objection, and the above payment order was finalized on January 13, 2010.

B. On October 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Busan District Court (201Hadan3081) and filed an application for immunity (201Hau3081). On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”). At the time of filing the application for bankruptcy immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s obligation to grant exemption without entering the obligation to grant immunity in the list of creditors at the time of filing the application for bankruptcy immunity.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the creditor list in bad faith at the time when the Plaintiff was granted the immunity decision of this case, and thus, the effect of the immunity decision of this case extends to the Defendant’s claim

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

B. (1) Determination (1) “A claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the list of creditors.

Therefore, if a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor did not enter it in

The claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the scope of immunity.