1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff is based on the payment order of the Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea 103758.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant (former Trade Name: D) applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea103758 against the Plaintiff. The payment order was served on October 19, 2009 on the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on November 3, 2009 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”) with Suwon District Court No. 2017Hadan1674, 2017, and 1674 (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”); and on September 7, 2017, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on September 22, 2017.

(C) the decision to grant immunity that became final and conclusive as above is “the decision to grant immunity in this case” (hereinafter “the decision to grant immunity”).

However, at the time of the bankruptcy and application for immunity, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff did not indicate the Defendant’s claims based on the instant payment order.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including Serial number), Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since a claim based on the instant payment order falls under a bankruptcy claim as a property claim arising due to a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and the decision of immunity of this case becomes final and conclusive, the effect of immunity has lost the ability and executive capacity of a lawsuit which has ordinary claims according to the effect of immunity, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Although the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the claim based on the instant payment order at the time when the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and bankruptcy of the instant case, he/she could not claim exemption as to the said claim, since it was omitted in the list of creditors in bad faith.

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) refers to the following: