1. The Defendant’s payment order issued on June 14, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hu15782 against the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 19, 1998, the Plaintiff received a loan from C within the limit of KRW 22,500,000.

The above loans were transferred to the defendant through D Limited Liability Company and E Company.

B. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of the above claim against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 tea15782.

On June 14, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court issued a payment order ordering the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay amounting to KRW 86,941,707 and KRW 22,964,428 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), which became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted immunity on May 15, 2015, and the immunity became final and conclusive on June 5, 2015, by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hau13035, 2014 and 13035.

However, at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity, claims based on the payment order of this case were not stated in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant’s claim based on the instant payment order constituted a bankruptcy claim under Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), which is a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability was exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, since the payment order of this case has lost its executive force, compulsory execution based thereon is not allowed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant was aware of the defendant's existence of the claim based on the payment order of this case by intention or negligence.