beta
Text
1. The defendant's obligation against the plaintiff according to the payment order in Busan District Court 2017 tea752.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-4.
On January 10, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability with Busan District Court Decision 201Hadan60, 2011Ma60, 201. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the list of creditors of this case”) includes as creditors Busan Bank, Busan Credit Card Company, Nonghyup Asset Management Company, Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Solomon Savings Bank, Promotion Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not include the list.
B. On August 30, 2011, the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”), which became final and conclusive on September 15, 2011.
C. On the ground that the Defendant lent KRW 55 million to the Plaintiff around November 2009, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2017 with Busan District Court Decision 2017 tea752, and on February 3, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 5 million won to the Defendant and 69,600 won for delay and demand procedure at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day when the original copy of the payment order was served to the Defendant,” which was served on the Plaintiff on February 10, 2017, and became final and conclusive as is February 25, 2017.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the party’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant according to the payment order of the instant case has already been extinguished by repayment, and even if not, the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time of applying for the decision on immunity of the instant case. Therefore, the effect of the decision on immunity of the instant case ought to be deemed to extend to the Defendant.
(2) At the time of filing an application for immunity of this case, the Plaintiff intentionally becomes aware of the Defendant’s obligation.