1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu1018478.

1. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the performance of joint and several liability obligations with the Plaintiff as the obligor. On March 21, 2018, “The interest and delay damages on KRW 37,184,38 and KRW 18,605,98 of the Plaintiff and KRW 1888 of the interest and delay damages on KRW 36,00,000 shall be paid within the limit of KRW 36,000” was confirmed at that time upon receipt of the payment order. The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on October 27, 2016 with the Daejeon District Court Decision 201Ha-Ba1227, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da12255, Oct. 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant decision of immunity”). The fact that the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and discharge case is not disputed, or the fact that the Defendant was not indicated in the list of creditors A, and it is recognized by the evidence No. 1 or evidence No. 4.

2. The claim on the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor for the judgment on the cause of the claim, that is, the bankruptcy claim, even if the immunity decision on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, is not entered in the list of creditors at the time of the application for immunity, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same Act

Meanwhile, "Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the above Act refers to cases where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, in cases where an obligor is unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, he/she did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.