1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the acquisition amount, and rendered a judgment on April 5, 2016, stating that “The Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff 1,607,506 won and 576,000 won with 15% interest per annum from March 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment was finalized on May 10, 2016.

B. On the other hand, on February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2019Hau300, 2019, 300). On the other hand, on January 17, 2020, the Plaintiff rendered a final decision of immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”).

However, the list of creditors of the case is written only as “C Institution” as a creditor.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not enter his obligations against the Defendant in the list of creditors by negligence. Accordingly, according to the decision of immunity of this case, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was exempted.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above judgment should not be permitted.

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy (hereinafter “the Act”) refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, has failed to enter it in the creditor 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 under the above Act, but if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above Act, even if the debtor failed to enter it in the creditor list by negligence.

As such, the list of creditors shall not be entered.