대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The fact that the Defendant, on August 11, 2007, prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate to the effect that “the amount of KRW 14 million per day from August 11, 2007 to December 30, 2007” (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) to the Plaintiff is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized by the statement in subparagraph 1.
2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the instant loan, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the decision to grant immunity due to bankruptcy became final and conclusive, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment of the instant loan against the Defendant.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, and that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, and that, upon receiving a declaration of bankruptcy and a decision to grant exemption on February 6, 2012 from the above court, it became final and conclusive around that time, and that there was omission of the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff in the list of bankruptcy creditors at the time of the decision to grant exemption. However, in light of the overall purport of the argument in this case, it is recognized that the Defendant knew of the existence of the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption. Thus, the instant loan obligations constitute “non-liability obligations not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.
As to this, the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was declared bankrupt, and thus, the defendant does not constitute non-exempt claims as "when the creditor becomes aware of the existence of a declaration of bankruptcy" under the proviso of Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the above Act.