1. Goods price based on the payment order (No. 2005Da8676) against the plaintiff's defendant 2,247.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2005, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of the price of goods KRW 2,247,90 and interest or delay damages thereon (hereinafter “the price of the goods in this case”) with the court below as the court 2005 tea8676. The above payment order was finalized around that time.

B. On the other hand, on August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan7593, and applied for immunity as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Ha7593, respectively. At the time of the Plaintiff’s application, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the Defendant’s claim for the instant goods payment amounting to KRW 246,656,950 in the list of creditors, while stating the claim amounting to KRW 12 in the list of creditors.

C. After that, the decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff was rendered on November 27, 2015, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant immunity”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In light of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the above facts revealed that the defendant's claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case is a claim for property arising before the bankruptcy of the plaintiff is declared bankrupt, and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and barring any special circumstance, the debtor who has been exempted is exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation for the purchase price of the goods of this case is exempted, and as long as the defendant contests the claim, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the effect of immunity of this case does not extend to the claim for the price of the goods of this case, since the Plaintiff knew of the Defendant’s claim for exemption of this case at the time of application for immunity.

Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is one of non-exempt claims.