1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 28, 2005, the defendant filed an application with the plaintiff and non-party D for a payment order claiming the payment of the loan of KRW 17 million and damages for delay against the plaintiff and non-party D as the resident stay support district court of Daegu on June 28, 2005. The above court issued a payment order with the same content as the defendant's application on July 14, 2005, and the payment order (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, exemption, etc. (1) On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and exemption application with the Daegu District Court No. 2006Hadan8345, 2006 and 8827, and filed a exemption from immunity from the above court on June 25, 2007 (hereinafter “instant exemption from immunity”).

(2) The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the decision on immunity of this case did not indicate the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant. The above decision on immunity became final and conclusive on July 11, 2007.

C. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant, including the Defendant’s application for auction, applied for a compulsory auction of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Daegu District Court resident support C based on the executory decision of the instant payment order, and the auction procedure began around that time.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' arguments argues that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied, since the plaintiff did not know about the existence of the above debt against the defendant at the time of filing the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, it is nothing more than omitted. As such, the above debt against the defendant should be deemed to have been exempted according to the above immunity decision.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the decision of immunity in this case does not reach the above obligation, since the plaintiff had clearly known the obligation against the defendant and had intentionally omitted it.

B. Determination of the debtor;