1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the payment order dated June 30, 2014 against the Defendant is denied.

2...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In fact, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the acquisition money under this court’s 2014 tea 2287.

On June 30, 2014, this Court ordered the Defendant to pay 20,374,871 won and 5,473,909 won a year from June 23, 2014 to the full payment date.

On September 11, 2014, the payment order was served on the plaintiff on September 11, 2014, and the payment order was finalized as it is because the plaintiff did not raise an objection within two weeks.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim under the instant payment order in the list of creditors submitted to the said court while filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Hadan1816, 2016, 2016.

On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity from the Gwangju District Court, and the said decision became final and conclusive on March 31, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

B. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The debtor shall be entitled to a bankruptcy claim against the property claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor granted immunity shall be exempt from all liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims.” Thus, even if the bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Therefore, the proviso to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall be prescribed: