The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2010, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 4,388,254 won and 1,95,910 won from July 17, 2010 to the date of complete payment” and the above payment order was served on the Plaintiff’s child and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The Plaintiff was granted exemption decision on August 10, 2015 (in the case of Incheon District Court 2014, 6162, 2015 lower court 6176) and the decision became final and conclusive on August 25, 2015. The Plaintiff did not include the Defendant’s claims in the list of creditors.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The claim on the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor for the determination of the cause of the claim is not recorded in the list of creditors, but the decision to grant immunity against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, unless it falls under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, it shall be exempted from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same Act.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's claim on the above payment order against the plaintiff is a claim on the property arising before the bankruptcy is declared against the plaintiff, and thus the immunity decision against the plaintiff is confirmed and thus the enforcement decision has been invalidated.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion received and served the plaintiff's child with the above payment order, and even in the case of seizure and collection order several times requested by the defendant after the payment order, the plaintiff's or the plaintiff's family member received and received the written decision.

In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known the existence of the Defendant’s claim but failed to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, the above claim is against the obligor’s obligation.