1. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff against the Seoul Western District Court on July 21, 2015 (hereinafter “Seoul Western District Court”).

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2015, the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party C Co., Ltd.") filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of the transfer payment with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015 tea3524, and issued an order of payment that fully accepts the claim amount (11,134,614 won, principal amount, 1,991,032 won) of the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party C Co., Ltd.") and the above order of payment was finalized on July 6,

B. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court, and the said court decided to grant immunity to the Plaintiff (2015, 6022 exemption, 2015Hadan6018 Declaration of Bankruptcy), which became final and conclusive on May 4, 2016, and the Defendant’s claim was not stated in the list of creditors prepared in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant executive title constituted a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy; and as a decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability against the Plaintiff ought to be exempted pursuant to 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 assertion

A. As to the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that, as the Plaintiff received the original of the payment order before several months from the application for bankruptcy immunity, the Defendant did not maliciously omit the Defendant’s claim in the list of creditors at the time of bankruptcy immunity, while being aware of the instant executive titles

B. Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff directly received the above enforcement authority on July 6, 2015 is significant in this Court.

However, the purport of the whole pleadings is the above evidence.