1. The Plaintiff’s loan obligations against the Defendant ( principal amounting to three million won and interest thereon and damages for delay).

1. The fact that the Defendant lent KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff via a branch before ten years ago (hereinafter “instant loan claim”); the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity on January 30, 2009 with the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Hau752, 2009Hau752, and 752 on August 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”); and the said decision on immunity was granted on August 31, 201 (hereinafter “decision on immunity”); and the said decision on immunity is granted the same year.

9.15. The established facts are not in dispute between the parties, or may be admitted as to the whole purport of the pleadings, regardless of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

As such, the instant claim is a property claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy and constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and, barring any special circumstance, the obligor, who has been exempted, is exempted from the responsibility for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures, and thus, the instant claim was also exempted from the liability, and as long as the Defendant contests such exemption, there

2. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not enter the creditor's list with knowledge of the existence of the claim of this case, and that the decision of immunity of this case does not affect the claim of this case.

First, the fact that the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized through the statement of Gap evidence No. 3.

However, Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, when 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, even if he was not aware of it.