1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order of Seoul Central District Court 2014Hu4107.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. After acquiring the principal and interest of loan against the Plaintiff of the Bank, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2014Guj 41007). The above court issued the instant payment order (the instant payment order) to the effect that “the debtor shall pay to the creditor the principal of loan, KRW 4,200,000, interest thereon, and delay damages.” The instant payment order was served on May 9, 2014 on the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed with the Seoul Central District Court an application for immunity for personal bankruptcy and immunity in accordance with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hadan4911, 2013Ma4907. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the obligation against the Defendant.

The above court declared the plaintiff bankrupt and rendered immunity on May 2, 2014, and each of the above decisions became final and conclusive as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the course of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not recognize that the defendant had a debt to the defendant, and omitted the defendant in the creditor list, the debt to the defendant against the defendant is also exempted from the above immunity decision, and ultimately, compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case should be dismissed.

In regard to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time when the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity, so that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith,” as provided by Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation against the Defendant should be excluded from the scope of immunity.

B. The obligor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is in bad faith in the list of creditors.