1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note No. 848 on October 21, 2009 to Defendant A with a face value of KRW 7.2 million and the due date, and on the same day, a notary public made and issued a notarized deed No. 848 on the same day from D to D in 2009.

As Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Ra4209, Defendant A applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment order claiming the amount of KRW 7.2 million and delay damages therefor, and received the payment order on November 23, 2016. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) filed an application for a payment order claiming redemption fees of KRW 2,630,322 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea6808, and damages for delay thereof, and received the payment order on January 12, 2015. The said payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 2015Da3839 and at the bottom 3839. On January 21, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) on January 21, 2016, and the said decision became final and conclusive on February 6, 2016. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendants in the list of creditors submitted to the court in the bankruptcy and exemption case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not omit the Defendants’ claims in the creditor list intentionally or in bad faith at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for bankruptcy and exemption. Therefore, the Defendants’ obligations against the Defendants were exempted from the immunity of this case, and accordingly, it should not be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on each of the above payment orders.

B. The debtor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) did not enter in the list of creditors in bad faith.