1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the Seoul Central District Court 2008 tea61525 is enforced.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the amount of KRW 2,406,649 from July 25, 2008 to the day of full payment with respect to KRW 1,096,666 from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da61525 to the day of full payment. The above payment order was issued from the above court and became final and conclusive September 23, 2008.

B. On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2017Hadan6571 and 2017Ma6571, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff filed a claim of KRW 154,507,702, including a limited liability company, in the creditor's list at the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption, but did not state the defendant's claim of the above payment order against the plaintiff, which was finalized by the above payment order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A. A claim on property arising from a cause before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor for the judgment on the cause of the plaintiff's claim, that is, a bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, even if the decision on immunity against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive,

According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff on the payment order of this case is a property claim arising from a cause which occurred before the bankruptcy is declared, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the immunity decision against the plaintiff is finalized and thus loses its executive force, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the judgment of this case against the plaintiff cannot be permitted.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was well aware of the existence of the claim under the instant payment order before the Plaintiff was granted immunity, and thus, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff is non-exempt claim.