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

A. On August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff took out a loan of KRW 10 million from the Defendant and bears the entire principal and interest of KRW 5,141,526 as of April 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant claim”).

B. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for personal bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Hadan6547, 2012Ma6547, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on September 28, 2012, and was decided to grant exemption on December 28, 2012. The instant claim was not stated in the list of creditors at the time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the claim in this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim that occurred before the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the exemption becomes effective unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense asserts that the claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claims under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "Act").

“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and such fact is not entered in the list of creditors. Thus, in cases where an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not aware of the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims under the above provision of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if an obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she did not enter it in

If there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the reason why the claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors.