On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Hadan2816, 2015Ma2813, which became final and conclusive on June 7, 2016. At the time of the application, the said decision became final and conclusive on June 22, 2016. At the time of application, the list of creditors included KRW 841,702,948, total amount of principal and interest of claims, and did not state the Defendant’s claim for indemnity arising from the Defendant’s subrogation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's obligation of indemnity against the defendant was exempted by the decision of immunity against the plaintiff as the lawsuit in this case, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's claim of indemnity in the list of creditors in bad faith, it should be excluded from the object of immunity.

B. In light of the background leading up to the occurrence of loans to C unions in the name of the Plaintiff based on the aforementioned evidence, the current status of obligations at the time when the Plaintiff applied for personal bankruptcy and exemption, etc., if the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the liability for indemnity arising from the Defendant’s subrogation, it is sufficiently anticipated in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the existence of the liability for indemnity against the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff constitutes “right of indemnity not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

C. Ultimately, according to the defendant's subrogation.