1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 3 million from the Defendant on September 19, 2016.

② On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition for immunity with the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court 2017Da216, 2017Haak217) and was granted immunity on August 11, 2017.

The above decision was finalized on August 26, 2017.

③ The Plaintiff did not report the obligation to the Defendant during the above procedure.

④ On February 14, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment of the principal and interest of the above loan at this court (2018 tea 10982), and the said payment order became final and conclusive as is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We's arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted bankruptcy and immunity by omitting the fact of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant by negligence without knowing the existence of the obligation against the Defendant.

Since the plaintiff is not known to the plaintiff, the defendant's right to claim a loan against the plaintiff has the effect of immunity in accordance with Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order stated in paragraph (4) should not be permitted.

Plaintiff

The argument includes the following: (a) the movable property for which the Defendant was forced to enforce, that the air conditioner fell from EPS Co., Ltd., a third party, and that it is not owned by the Plaintiff; (b) however, this is a matter to be resolved by a lawsuit by a third party; (c) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is not eligible to be a party; and (d) it is difficult to regard the claim as stated

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to perform his obligation, sent text messages to confirm whether the bankruptcy is in progress, and sent content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, and sufficiently known the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was aware of the existence of the defendant's claim, and thus the decision to grant immunity is effective.