The payment order between the plaintiff and the defendant is based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2014J25921.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under this Court’s order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 7,717,81, and any delay damages for KRW 2,69,943, among them,” and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity for individual bankruptcy and immunity with the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Hadan5274, 2016Ma5270, and the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from immunity on April 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant exemption from immunity”).

The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on May 11, 2017.

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure is "the bonds of this case according to the payment order of this case".

(iii) there was omission of the complaint. [The absence of a dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the cause of a claim, a claim on the property arising before a declaration of a strike is a bankruptcy claim against a debtor, and a debtor who has been exempted from liability pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act shall be exempted from the liability for all obligations owed to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order is not permissible, barring any special circumstance. The instant claim based on the instant payment order constitutes a bankruptcy claim that occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive after the decision was rendered.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of the instant claim, did not enter it in the list of creditors.