A. On August 2, 2012, the Defendant repaid the Nonghyup Bank loans to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff guaranteed the obligation of indemnity to the Defendant due to the Defendant’s subrogation.

B. As of May 26, 2016, the reimbursement obligation owed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant is the total of KRW 15,281,85, the principal amount, KRW 464,780, and KRW 7,868,718, including damages, and KRW 23,615,353.

C. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Hadan12, and on June 1, 2015, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Ma2015 decided on June 16, 2015, and became final and conclusive on June 16, 2015. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement on the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a claim for property arising from a cause that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt is a bankruptcy claim. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures. As seen earlier, the defendant's claim for indemnity is a bankruptcy claim arising from a cause that occurred before the plaintiff is declared bankrupt, and the decision of permission for discharge against the plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is exempted

The defendant asserts that the exemption does not extend to the defendant since the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's claim for indemnity in the list of creditors in bad faith.

Therefore, the burden of proof of the debtor's bad faith is against the claimant. There is no evidence that the defendant requested or urged the plaintiff to perform the obligation of indemnity prior to the above decision of immunity, and the plaintiff is a large amount of financial institutions.