2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 6, 1998, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. The Defendant was declared bankrupt on August 31, 2016 by Busan District Court Decision 2016Hadan1217, 2016Ma1217 and filed an application for immunity and immunity, and was granted immunity on November 17, 2016, and the immunity was finalized on December 2, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on immunity”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant claim was also exempted prior to immunity under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) inasmuch as the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case is not exempted in accordance with Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, since the defendant, in bad faith, omitted the claim of this case in the creditor list.

B. Determination 1) Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that “The claim on the property that occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim,” and the main text of Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor who has been exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure.” Thus, even if the bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, it shall be exempted from the liability with the effect of immunity unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 566 (proviso) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In addition, the term “liability” means that the debtor in question remains in existence, but it is impossible to compel the debtor to perform his/her obligation. Accordingly, if the decision on discharge against the bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the right to institute a lawsuit