1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff was enforced on September 16, 2009 by the Ulsan District Court 2009Da45666 dated September 16, 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2009, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff (the name prior to the opening of the name: C, the name of December 2, 2009) of the above company (hereinafter “the instant claim”) from the mining remodeling industry, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff under this court 2009 tea 6139, and the payment order citing the Defendant’s application was issued on September 16, 2009 and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Plaintiff was granted immunity on July 8, 2013 in this Court 2012: (a) the exemption from immunity 211; and (b) the exemption from immunity 201Hadan211, which became final and conclusive on July 23, 2013; and (c) the Defendant is not indicated in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2 and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant claim was exempted from liability.

Therefore, compulsory execution under the above payment order should not be permitted.

B. The defendant asserts that the claim in this case constitutes a claim not entered in the creditor list in bad faith by the debtor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the above decision of immunity is not effective.

In addition, the facts that the plaintiff submitted in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure are not shown in the list of creditors as seen earlier. However, the time of transfer of the claim in this case to the defendant appears to have lapsed a considerable time since July 2009, when the plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption. The creditors listed in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff are seven corporate creditors, their individual creditors are seven corporate creditors, and their amount of debt is large, and the amount of debt is small, and the claim in this case is based on the light remodeling industry and the lease contract between the plaintiff as seen earlier.