1. The defendant's order of payment order (96j1423, Dec. 23, 1996) against the plaintiff was based on the original copy of the Daejeon District Court's Seosan Branch.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 1996, the defendant received a payment order with the purport that the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 3,664,167 won and 25% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The payment order of this case was finalized on March 9, 1997.

B. On August 23, 2006, the Defendant, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, received a seizure collection order ( Daejeon District Court 2006TT3267) as to KRW 12,382,80 of the Plaintiff’s lease deposit return claim against C.

C. The Plaintiff omitted the Defendant in the list of creditors while filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Hadan2301, 2014 2303), and was declared bankrupt on December 3, 2014 by the said court, and was granted immunity on April 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to return the deposit money to the Defendant, and the fact that the instant payment order was issued, or that the Defendant received a seizure collection order based on the original copy of the instant payment order, even though there was a obligation to return the deposit money against the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the Defendant’s claim and filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity. Thus, the effect of immunity exemption extends to the Defendant’s claim.

B. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in summary of the Defendant’s assertion is a debt between individuals, different from the financial institution’s debt, and thus, the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and application for immunity is contrary to the common sense.

Therefore, the plaintiff intentionally omitted the defendant from the creditor list and obtained immunity. Therefore, the effect of immunity does not extend to the defendant's claim.

3. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the claim which became the cause of the claim of the payment order.