1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2003, the Defendant received the claim against the Plaintiff, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff under this Court No. 2006 tea5721, the Defendant issued a payment order with the content that “the obligor (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the obligee (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 3,049,796 per annum from October 25, 2003 to the delivery date of the instant order, 17% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the instant order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the payment order was delivered to the Defendant on December 8, 2006, and was finalized on December 23, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order,” and the bonds based on the instant payment order are b.

On October 2007, the defendant had conducted an auction procedure on the corporeal movables owned by the plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Changwon District Court No. 132 and 2014Hadan131, and the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity on September 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”), and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

However, in the above bankruptcy and immunity cases, the payment order bonds of this case were omitted in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, entry of Eul evidence 1, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the instant payment order claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and thus, the Plaintiff was exempted from the liability to repay the claim under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act according to the decision on immunity of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should be denied.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s defense is with merit.