(2) The Plaintiff was granted immunity from the Suwon District Court on August 12, 2015 (2014.279) and the said decision became final and conclusive on August 27, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant immunity”). On the other hand, in the above immunity case, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff was not indicated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that all of the obligations known to the Plaintiff at the time of the decision on immunity of this case were reported, but the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff due to mistake and did not intentionally omitted, and that the effect of the decision on immunity of this case extends to the claim of this case. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the effect of the decision on immunity of this case does not extend to the effect of the decision on immunity of this case, since

“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, if an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Act

The reasons for excluding the claim that is not entered in the list of creditors are not entered in the list of creditors.