1. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 tea 432542 against the plaintiff by the defendant and the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. The facts acknowledged are: (a) the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff to the Seoul Central District Court 2017Hu432542; (b) the fact that the said payment order was issued on October 18, 2017 by the said court (hereinafter “instant payment order”); (c) the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s claim based on the original copy of the instant payment order; (d) the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s claim on October 12, 2017; (e) the Daejeon District Court 2017Hadan1020 on October 12, 2017; and (e) the said exemption order became final and conclusive; and (e) the Defendant transferred the obligation to the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit; or (e) the fact that the Defendant transferred the obligation to the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor upon the receipt of the instant payment order to the Defendant is recognized based on the evidence stated in subparagraphs 1 through 6, 1, and 2.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against the defendant, since the defendant lost its eligibility for execution following the transfer of the claim under the payment order in this case to the defendant succeeding intervenor, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case against the plaintiff shall be rejected.

3. A claim on property arising from a cause before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor regarding the judgment on the claim against the defendant succeeding intervenor, i.e., a bankruptcy claim, even if the decision on immunity against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, unless it falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same

According to the above facts, a claim for the amount of money transferred under the payment order of this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy was declared bankrupt, and a decision to grant immunity to the plaintiff is confirmed, barring any special circumstance, and thus, loses its executive force.