1. The Plaintiff’s credit loan principal amounting to KRW 4,00,000 and interest thereon, etc. as of August 7, 2008 against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 7, 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed 6 million won as a credit loan from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff paid interest to the Defendant by June 2013, and extended the credit loan maturity on July 9, 2009 to August 7, 2013, and paid the principal amount of KRW 2 million to the Defendant, and the current balance of principal is KRW 4 million.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). (b)

On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (in cases of the Suwon District Court 2015, 5658, 2015Hadan5658), and received a decision of bankruptcy and exemption on July 18, 2016, and the said decision became final and conclusive.

Defendant’s claims were not entered in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4-1, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Any property claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor as to the determination of the cause of the claim, that is, a bankruptcy claim, even if a decision to grant immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, is not entered in the list of creditors at the time of the application for immunity, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the same Act is exempted from the liability and the ability and executory power of filing a lawsuit, which would normally be the natural obligation,

According to the above facts of recognition, the claim of this case is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the decision of immunity against the plaintiff is confirmed, thereby losing its executive force.

Since the Defendant is dissatisfied with the exemption of the claim of this case, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of exemption.

B. The Defendant alleged the Defendant’s assertion that, at the time of application for immunity, the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the instant claim at the time of application for immunity, the obligation did not be exempted.

The obligor under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is in bad faith in the list of creditors.