1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the claim for the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant claim”) was a claim indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation procedures (Seoul District Court Decision 2014 Mada16785) and that the extinctive prescription was completed in the course of repayment of the obligation through rehabilitation procedures.

However, according to Article 625 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which provides for the effect of immunity following the completion of individual rehabilitation procedures, a debtor who has been exempted in the individual rehabilitation procedures is exempted from liability for the obligations of individual rehabilitation creditors except that the debtor has repaid according to the repayment plan, but is not exempted from liability for the "claims not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors".

Therefore, unlike the bankruptcy procedure, claims not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors are excluded from the list of immunity regardless of the debtor's bad faith, negligence, or omission. There is no evidence to prove that the claim in this case has been entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and there is no evidence to prove that the claim in this case has been repaid by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.