The plaintiff's obligation to the defendant 3,794,900 won and loan obligation 4,00,000 won have been exempted.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the Defendant, and repaid KRW 1 million as at the present time, and bears the obligation to pay for an attempted amount equivalent to KRW 3,794,900 as at the present time according to the transaction of alcoholic beverages with the Defendant around November 2013 (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

B. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court for immunity on December 18, 2017, and was granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”); on January 3, 2018, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive; and on the list of creditors, the Defendant and the instant obligation were not included therein.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “The effect of the immunity decision of this case extends to the instant obligation since it was omitted because it was not aware that the Defendant had the instant obligation against the Defendant at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity,” whereas the Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the Defendant from the creditor list, and even if the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant by negligence, the instant obligation constitutes non-exempt claims.”

B. Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for “Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” as one of non-exempt bonds.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by the debtor" means that the debtor is aware of the existence of obligations against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the list of creditors. In the event that the debtor was unaware of the existence of obligations, even if he was negligent, it does not constitute non-exempt claims.

In such cases, the obligor's bad faith with respect to the omission of bonds has been omitted.