1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff at the Seoul Central District Court on February 27, 2014, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the assignee-paid bonds (hereinafter “instant bonds”) as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea5800, the Defendant received an order to pay KRW 6,847,809, and KRW 1,896,170, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment. The above payment order was finalized on May 8, 2014.

B. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on February 2, 2015 by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court 2014Hadan30, 2014Ma30, and the said immunity became final and conclusive on February 17, 2015.

However, the claim of this case was not stated in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was omitted in the list of creditors due to the Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the existence of the instant claim in the course of proceeding with the case of bankruptcy and exemption, and thus, the effect of immunity on the instant claim

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant claim was not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith, and thus, the instant claim is not exempt from liability.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment, the Defendant received the instant payment order based on the instant claim, and the fact that he/she received the instant payment order under Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Branch 2014TTT7398 on June 10, 2014 based on the instant payment order, may be acknowledged. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant claim because the Plaintiff did not directly receive the said payment order or the bond seizure and the collection order. The Plaintiff entered 23 bond agencies in the creditor list, and there is no reason to omit only the Plaintiff’s claim.