청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 3, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the refund of the deposit amount under the transaction agreement with the Seoul East East District Court 2005Kadan18567 on January 16, 2007, "the defendant (the plaintiff) applied for the exemption of 34,800,000 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff) and 15,000 won among them from December 18, 2002 to 7,50,000 won from February 19, 2003 to 10,000,000 won from February 21, 2003 to 30,000,000 won from February 21, 2003 to 30,000 won from the date of the above decision of 200,0000 won to 16,0000,0000 won, which became final and conclusive, from 201.7.5.1.7.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not responsible for paying the defendant's obligations, since the court's decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.
The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim does not constitute the exemption claim because the plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim, but was granted immunity by omitting the defendant's claim in the creditor list.
B. (1) Determination (1) “Claims in bad faith and not recorded in the list of creditors” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims under the above provision, but this does not apply.