1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. With respect to cases of application for the suspension of compulsory execution, this Court shall decide on October 2015, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2006, the Defendant applied for a payment order seeking a loan under the Busan District Court Decision 2006Da9891 on the ground that on November 23, 2004 against the Plaintiff, C (hereinafter “instant company”), and D, the Defendant lent KRW 34 million to the instant company, who worked as an employee under the joint and several guarantee of the Plaintiff and D, and the said court issued the payment order on the same day (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 10, 2006, and was finalized on April 25, 2006.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the instant company from November 23, 2004 to March 25, 2006.

C. On February 14, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with Seoul Central District Court No. 2008Hadan4438, 2008, 4438.

The above court decided to grant immunity on May 27, 2008, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 11, 2008.

The obligation against the Defendant based on the instant payment order was omitted in the list of creditors.

Based on the instant payment order on October 8, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for seizure of movable property against the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables with the Busan District Court 2015No5812, which was executed on October 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that D, the real management owner of the instant company, was liable for jointly and severally liable to the Defendant, and it was impossible to think of the Defendant’s obligation itself at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity due to the Defendant’s demand for repayment.

Since there was no "no" in omitting the defendant's claim in the list of creditors of bankruptcy and immunity cases, immunity has the effect of immunity on the defendant's claim omitted.

B. "Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act means that the debtor grants immunity.