1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is denied based on the payment order issued by Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 tea and 24684.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-1.

A. On April 17, 2012, the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 tea and 24684 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with respect to the claim that the Plaintiff received against the Plaintiff, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Hadan945, 2016Ma945, and received a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”) from the said court on May 25, 2017, and became final and conclusive on June 13, 2017.

However, the Plaintiff did not enter the claim against the Defendant and the instant payment order in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the said application.

C. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Nongsan District Court 2017TTT12689, based on the judgment of the prior suit in this case.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the decision on the cause of the claim was rendered, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.

According to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor who receives a decision on bankruptcy and immunity is exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures. Thus, bankruptcy claims not entered in the list of creditors in the application for immunity are also subject to immunity.

According to the evidence mentioned above and the facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff against the plaintiff is considered to be a bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy. Accordingly, the decision on immunity of this case became final and conclusive, and thus the plaintiff's right to institute a lawsuit and the executive force of the lawsuit

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s prior suit against the Plaintiff.