1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant, 16,416,164 won as principal and its delay damages, etc.

1. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and exemption from immunity”) with Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Hadan2190, and 2015Ma2187 (hereinafter “the following”), was declared bankrupt on October 29, 2015, and was also granted exemption from immunity on January 22, 2016.

However, at the time of the bankruptcy of this case and the application for immunity, the Plaintiff did not enter the remaining principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s loan obligations (principal KRW 30 million at the time of the loan, hereinafter “instant loan obligations”) in the bond list.

After that, on March 25, 2015, the Defendant acquired the instant loan obligations (16,416,164 won as principal of the remaining debt at the time of acquisition), filed a payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hu72642, supra, hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Plaintiff to seek the repayment of the instant loan obligations, and issued the payment order on April 9, 2015.

On April 22, 2015, the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff (the person who was actually served on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the same person”) but was finalized on May 7, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection.

On June 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) against the Plaintiff by the Daejeon District Court 2015TTTT 5057, with the title of execution of the instant payment order as the title of execution, and served the Plaintiff (the person who was actually served with the Defendant) on June 23, 2015. The relevant claim seizure and collection order was served on the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings] Therefore, the loan obligation of this case was exempted by the bankruptcy and immunity of this case due to the bankruptcy claim occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the plaintiff, and the defendant contests it by means of filing an application for payment order against the plaintiff. Thus, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the fact of exemption.

2...