1. On February 23, 2006, the Defendant’s Jeju District Court Seopo District Court Decision 2006Ra7 Claims against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2006, the Defendant filed an application with the Jeju District Court for a payment order with the Plaintiff and C as the debtor. On February 23, 2006, the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court that “the Plaintiff and C jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 88,656,790 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 26, 2004 to the delivery date of the instant payment order, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.”

The instant payment order was finalized on March 15, 2006 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on December 15, 2009, the Jeju District Court Decision 2009Hadan471, 2009Da471, the Plaintiff received the exemption decision on February 12, 2010, and the said exemption decision (hereinafter “instant exemption decision”) became final and conclusive on February 27, 2010.

However, in the case of the above bankruptcy and exemption decision, the plaintiff did not report the defendant's claim under the payment order of this case (hereinafter "claim of this case") as bankruptcy claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The three-year statute of limitations, which was the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages arising from a tort, had already expired at the time of the application for the instant payment order. (2) Even if the instant claim was not reported as a bankruptcy claim at the time of the determination of exemption, the said claim does not constitute a non-exclusive claim under Article 566 subparag. 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the effect of the decision on exemption is too excessive to the instant

B. The Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable if one of the above two arguments of the Plaintiff’s judgment as to the expiration of extinctive prescription, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted, and there is no reason to see 2)’s argument.

1) Accordingly, the argument is examined from the legitimacy of the argument. 1) The argument is asserted.