1. The Defendant’s acquisition of money by the Seoul Western District Court 2018 tea 73084 is executory against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff with Seoul Western District Court Decision 2018 tea73084 with respect to the credit card use payment claim, and the payment order was issued on November 15, 2018, and the said payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) became final and conclusive on January 30, 2019.

B. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on November 16, 2018 by filing a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the District Court for immunity. On May 24, 2019, the Plaintiff was granted immunity under the 2017Hadan1027, and on May 24, 2019, the Defendant’s claim based on the payment order was not stated in the list of creditors of 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 payment order constituted a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which was arising from a property claim arising before the bankruptcy is declared, and the 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 payment order 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 was served with the payment order of this case while the plaintiff proceeds from the bankruptcy and exemption case, and the plaintiff asserts that at the time of bankruptcy immunity, the defendant's claim was omitted in bad faith.

B. Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff’s punishment C was served on January 15, 2019 is significant in this Court.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 5 and 6 of Gap, are ① claims based on the payment order of this case, shall be the bonds acquired.