1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017 tea149016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking a loan against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2017 tea140916), and the original copy of the payment order was delivered to the Plaintiff’s mother on April 29, 2017, and became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

On December 8, 2017, the Defendant acquired a loan claim against the Plaintiff from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”) and received a judgment of acceptance by filing a lawsuit for grant of execution clause.

C. The Plaintiff, as Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2018Ha101751, 2018Ma101751, 2018, filed an application for immunity for bankruptcy and immunity, and was granted immunity on November 8, 2018, and became final and conclusive around that time.

The claim of this case was not indicated in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s instant claim constitutes a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), which is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability should be exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion was known to the existence of the instant claim, but did not enter it in the list of creditors intentionally or by negligence. Therefore, this constitutes a non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and its responsibility is not exempted.

B. Determination 1: (a) the obligor under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act does not enter in the list of creditors in bad faith.