1. The defendant's order based on the payment order for the claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff of Daejeon District Court 2008 tea 590.

Facts of recognition

On May 15, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff-friendly D, the Plaintiff, while driving the vehicle; and (b) concealed the F vehicle, which is the Defendant’s insured vehicle, thereby causing personal and material damage.

The defendant paid insurance money due to the above accident to the insured and acquired the right to claim damages against the plaintiff and D.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an application with the plaintiff and D for a payment order claiming the performance of the above amount of reimbursement under the Daejeon District Court's 2008 tea590, and on June 2, 2008, the above court ordered D and the plaintiff jointly and severally paid the defendant the amount of KRW 7,455,510 and delay damages from June 1, 2005. The above payment order became final and conclusive on June 19, 2008.

(2) On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge (hereinafter “application for bankruptcy and discharge”) with the Daejeon District Court No. 2016Hadan143 and 2016Ma143 on January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on March 15, 2016, and was granted a decision to grant immunity on April 18, 2016, and the said declaration of bankruptcy became final and conclusive on March 30, 2016 and May 3, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”). The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while applying for bankruptcy and exemption of the instant case did not indicate the instant obligation against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including each number in the case of additional numbers), and the fact that the court held that the plaintiff's debt against the defendant was exempted from its liability by the decision on immunity of this case, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

The defendant's assertion of intention or gross negligence is judged by the defendant's obligation of this case.