1. The defendant's order based on the original payment order in the acquisition money case No. 2009 tea747 against the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court.

On August 26, 2002, the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the credit card while using the credit card upon entering into a credit card service contract with C Bank on August 26, 2002, and the Defendant applied for a payment order to the Plaintiff with the Gwangju District Court 2009Hu747 after transferring the credit card price to the Plaintiff, and then applying for a payment order to the Plaintiff for the payment seeking the payment of the transfer price to the Plaintiff. The payment order was issued on January 21, 2009, stating that “the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,862,193 and its delay delay damages to the Defendant.”

2. The facts that became final and conclusive on October 10 (hereinafter “instant payment order”); and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Gwangju District Court 2016Hadan102, 2016Ma1102, and 2016Ma1102, and received a decision of exemption on December 12, 2016 (However, there is no dispute between the respective parties regarding claims based on the instant payment order and the list of creditors).

According to the above facts, the defendant's claim based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff constitutes a bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from the cause before bankruptcy is declared.

In addition, there is no circumstance to regard the above claim as "a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 (7) proviso of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, so long as immunity for the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff's liability was exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff asserted that the period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the payment order of this case has expired after 10 years from the date on which the payment order of this case became final and conclusive. However, the fact that the defendant seized the plaintiff's automobile on June 8, 2006 by Seoul Southern District Court 2006Kadan12499 with the claim based on the payment order of this case as preserved right is significant until the provisional seizure is cancelled.