A. On October 20, 2003, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed a loan from the Gyeyang-dong Saemaul Depository, and on April 25, 2005, the Plaintiff subrogated KRW 9,049,475 to the Gyeyang-dong Saemaul Treasury on April 25, 2005 as the Plaintiff delayed the repayment of the loan.

B. On August 24, 2007, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Hadan25849, and the decision to grant immunity in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Ma25868 on April 23, 2008 became final and conclusive around that time.

In preparing a list of creditors in the above case, the plaintiff entered Yang-dong Saemaul Depository, which is not the defendant, as a bankruptcy creditor.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement amounting to the court 2014 Ghana24169, and the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the decision of performance recommendation made on July 15, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on performance recommendation”). 【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a debtor's right not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith is not entered in the list of creditors despite the debtor's knowledge of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted. Therefore, if 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 a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if the debtor

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). B.

The plaintiff was unaware of the defendant's subrogation.