A. The Defendant applied for a payment order for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim for reimbursement (hereinafter “claim in this case”) based on the Busan District Court Decision 2000DaGa248317 (hereinafter “the claim in this case”), and the payment order issued by the above court was finalized on July 26, 2014. The content of the payment order was that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to B and the Plaintiff 1,163,000 won, and 5% per annum from April 11, 1996 to September 23, 200, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment”.

B. On January 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Changwon District Court Decision 2008Hadan244, 2008Ma245, and was declared bankrupt on March 3, 2009, and the decision of immunity became final and conclusive on August 18, 2009. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff to the above court did not state the claim of this case and stated the total amount of KRW 2,462,826,971, including financial institutions and corporations, 12 creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the above facts finding and the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff, namely, (i) 12 creditors listed in the list of creditors at the time of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity; (ii) it is difficult to find any particular circumstances to omit the Defendant’s claims despite being aware of only the Defendant’s claims; and (iii) the amount of claims in this case is a very small amount compared to the amount of claims listed in the list of creditors, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff omitted the claims in the list of creditors in the process of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity without being aware of the existence of obligations against the Defendant.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.