1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption in around 2011 and the decision to grant immunity (Seoul Central District Court Order 201Da3496 dated February 2, 2012) is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption and was granted the said immunity upon knowing the fact that the judgment stated in the purport of the claim was rendered in around 2011.

Therefore, the obligation under the above judgment (hereinafter “instant obligation”) was discharged.

(b) The debtor who is exempted from the liability on the sales market shall be exempted from all of his obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except for the distribution by the bankruptcy procedures;

However, the obligor shall not be exempt from liability for any claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.

(Article 566 subparag. 9 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Here, “a claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Therefore, 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 under the same Act, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-

In light of the purport of Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the above, the issue of whether an obligor’s bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the details of omitted claims and the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and the obligor; and (b) whether the documents submitted by the obligor alone are consistent with objective documents.