1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff was conducted based on the payment order (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea30507).

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. had a claim against the Plaintiff for a judgment amounting to “3,94,401 won and interest for delay of KRW 1,994,00 (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Gaso30677, Jan. 8, 2007; hereinafter “the instant judgment”), and the Defendant acquired the said claim around 2012.

In order to extend the statute of limitations against the plaintiff, the defendant applied for a payment order as Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea30507, and the court issued a payment order on December 5, 2016, and "the payment order of this case" is "the payment order of this case."

(B) A final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive. (b) On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Hadan2011, 2015Ma2011, 2011), and the court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff on November 23, 2016, and the decision became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff did not indicate any obligation pursuant to the instant judgment in the list of creditors submitted to the court in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure. 【No dispute exists in the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff did not state any obligation pursuant to the instant judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The claim on the property that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim, and the main text of Article 566 of the same Act provides that “the exempted debtor shall be exempted from all liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedures.” Thus, even if the bankruptcy claim was not entered in the creditors list of the application for immunity, it shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act.”

Therefore, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, a claim based on the judgment of this case constitutes the subject of exemption from liability, and it is reasonable to deny compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case issued for the extension of prescription of the claim

B. The defendant is the plaintiff.