The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff is based on the payment order for the 2012th 270 goods price case for the defendant's head of the Gwangju District Court.

Basic Facts

C On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order seeking “1.20,000 won of the price of goods, late 280,000 won, late 270,000 won, and late 2.70,000 won for the payment order with respect to the Plaintiff.”

On this issue, the court issued the same payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Plaintiff.

The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012, and was finalized on December 14, 2012.

On January 1, 2016, the Defendant acquired the bonds entered in the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant bonds”) from C, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the bonds on behalf of C around July 2020.

Meanwhile, at the bottom 4001, 2006, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and immunity with the Gwangju District Court 4090, and was declared bankrupt on August 16, 2007, and was granted immunity on October 8 of the same year. On October 23 of the same year, the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “the decision to grant immunity of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff

The list of creditors submitted while requesting bankruptcy and exemption as stated in the subsection was stated in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole argument as above-finding, the claim of this case is a claim arising from the property arising before the declaration of bankruptcy and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and there is no circumstance to deem that the claim of this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and as long as the immunity decision of this case against the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's liability for the claim of this case was exempted pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.