2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 17, 2010, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of the assignee fee (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da270415). On June 20, 2012, the Defendant served on the Plaintiff himself/herself. On August 31, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment that accepted the Defendant’s claim entirely (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). B. The Defendant’s claim for the amount taken over (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”).

On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for discharge from Busan District Court Decision 2013Da1417, and the above court rendered a decision to grant the Plaintiff’s exemption from discharge from liability on November 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

In the above immunity case submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant did not enter the list as the creditor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1-8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not omission the instant claim in the creditors’ list with intention or bad faith at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for exemption, and thus, the instant claim’s obligation was exempted according to the decision of exemption.

B. Under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Act”), the term “claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter it in the creditors’ list. Thus, when 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 as prescribed by the said Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007).