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

A. From October 2014 to November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 44,334,620 (hereinafter “instant product”).

B. The Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy or exemption with the Changwon District Court No. 2016Hadan226, 2016Ma226, and obtained immunity from immunity on June 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant exemption from immunity”). The Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the price of the instant product (hereinafter “price of the instant product”).

The decision on immunity of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, and judgment as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio as to the whole purport of the argument of this case.

According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), an obligor granted immunity is exempt from all obligations owed to any bankruptcy creditor in principle. However, according to the main sentence of Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith is not exempt from the liability even if the obligor has received immunity.”

Here, “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims as prescribed by the above provisions, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is not recorded in the list of creditors by negligence.