2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

A. On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Busan District Court Decision 2010 Busan District Court Decision 201Da34273, Nov. 15, 2010 and received a decision to commence individual rehabilitation. The Plaintiff filed an application for a decision to commence individual rehabilitation with the Defendant, including the Defendant’s obligation to “the amount calculated by the ratio of the agreed interest rate from October 27, 2010 to the full payment.”

B. On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was determined to discontinue the above individual rehabilitation procedure by making installment payments in accordance with the above draft repayment plan and was unable to cope with it any longer.

C. The Plaintiff’s obligation under the attached list to be borne by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant obligation”).

(D) In order to escape from the burden of debt to the creditors in the 11st place, on July 10, 2015, Busan District Court 2015, 2015, Busan District Court 2015, 1653, and 1653, and the above decision was finalized on June 14, 2016 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity from the above court on June 14, 2016. However, at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, the instant obligation against the Defendant was not included in the list of creditors. 【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the respective entries in Gap 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to the cause of the claim, a debtor who has obtained the discharge, unless he/she is a claim not entered in the creditor list in bad faith, shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except the distribution by bankruptcy proceedings.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was discharged from liability, and as long as the Defendant contests on whether to grant immunity, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of exemption from liability.

3. The defendant's assertion has intentionally omitted the debt of this case against the defendant at the time when the plaintiff filed the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, and thus the payment liability is not exempted.