1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 14, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff, seeking payment of credit card use charges, which was issued on the ground that the payment order was issued on November 14, 2013, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Incheon District Court 2015, 3829, 2015Hadan3824, and on February 15, 2016, the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) became final and conclusive around that time.

The plaintiff did not enter the defendant's claim in the list of creditors at the time of requesting bankruptcy or exemption.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, by negligence, omitted the defendant from the creditor list. Thus, the effect of the decision on immunity of this case extends to the defendant's claim.

Therefore, compulsory execution under the above payment order should not be permitted.

3. According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (the "Act"), a debtor who has been exempted from liability is not exempted from all liabilities to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures. However, pursuant to subparagraph 7 of the same Article, a debtor's claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith is not exempted from liability.

Here, “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims under the above provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the above provision, even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing

2.2