1. The Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2009Kadan7027 decided Nov. 25, 2009 against the plaintiff by the defendant and the defendant succeeding intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2009, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Defendant received KRW 59,207,473 from the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2009.” On the ground that “The Defendant filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground that it was impossible to serve the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a judgment that accepted the Defendant’s claim in full on November 25, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant judgment”), and the judgment became final and conclusive by the final appeal period around that time.

B. Around August 10, 2009, the Defendant transferred the above claim to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”) and sent the content-certified mail notifying the transfer to the Plaintiff.

However, the content-certified mail was not served on the Plaintiff, and the successor sent again a content-certified mail related to the assignment of claims under the Defendant’s name on November 12, 2015, and the Plaintiff received the content-certified mail around that time.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy on August 26, 2014 and was declared bankrupt (Seoul Central District Court 2014Hadan8567). On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted decision to grant immunity (Seoul Central District Court 2014Da8567, hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”), and the decision became final and conclusive on April 2, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including above number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Inasmuch as the immunity decision of this case on the Plaintiff’s assertion was exempted from the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant or the succeeding Intervenor, compulsory execution based on the instant judgment shall not be permitted.

B. The succeeding intervenor's assertion that the succeeding intervenor was declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity without entering his/her debt under the judgment of this case in the creditor list in the bankruptcy procedure. Thus, the succeeding intervenor's claim is not exempt from liability under the judgment of this case.

3. Determination

A. When the plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy, he did not enter his obligations under the judgment of this case in the list of creditors.