1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

In other words, the defendant's claim was not entered in the list of creditors at the time when the Daegu District Court 201.6. 11. 201. 6. 201. 3245 decided on June 11, 2012.

Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where the obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the obligor 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 provision, but if the obligor was aware 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 provision

(2) In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff directly served the original copy of the payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Hu164724, Jun. 26, 2011) with respect to the obligation described in the purport of the claim on November 15, 2010, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 2010, Oct. 14, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). However, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the Defendant’s claim at the time of the bankruptcy and exemption.

Therefore, the defendant's above claims are in bad faith the debtor under Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.