The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 449,00 on October 2, 2014.

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since it filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court No. 2014, 967, 2014Hadan968, which became final and conclusive upon receipt of the exemption decision on September 30, 2014.

(2) On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received liquor equivalent to KRW 449,00,00 from the Plaintiff and did not pay the price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant claim constitutes non-exempt claims since the Defendant intentionally omitted the Plaintiff’s claim at the time of exemption from liability in the list of creditors, even though the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the price several times by sending text messages or telephone conversations around March 2014.

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “A debtor shall be liable for bankruptcy claims” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “A debtor who has received immunity shall not be exempted from all obligations to any bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, the effect of immunity shall be exempted unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 566 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Meanwhile, “a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” referred to in Article 566 proviso 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to a case where a debtor fails to enter it in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of obligations to a bankruptcy creditor before the decision for immunity is made. Therefore, if the debtor fails to know the existence of an obligation: