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

A. On March 29, 2007, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Multilater Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) on KRW 3,441,875 on a monthly rent for the Non-Party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation under the above lease agreement.

B. As of July 29, 2015, the debt amount against the Defendant of the non-party company reaches 11,025,894 won in total (= principal amount of KRW 6,582,996 for delay damages).

C. On the other hand, on February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court (2014Hadan1970, 2014Ma1970, 1970). At the time of the said application, at the time of the said application, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the joint and several surety obligation in the list of creditors, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on April 21, 2014 and the decision of immunity was rendered on May 12, 2015, and the aforementioned decision of immunity became final and conclusive on May 27, 201

[Ground of recognition] The evidence No. 1-3, Gap evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the obligation of this case against the defendant is old, and the obligation of this case was omitted in the creditor list because it was impossible to memory due to joint and several sureties, and thus, the obligation of joint and several sureties should also be deemed exempted. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the existence of the obligation of joint and several sureties. Thus, the defendant asserts that the obligation of this case constitutes "the obligation of joint and several sureties which is not recorded in the creditor list in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

B. (1) Determination is based on the case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and thus, the obligor is not required to enter the same in the list of creditors, as stated in Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.