1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband, borrowed KRW 45 million from D, and agreed to repay KRW 10 million up to December 31, 2007 until December 31, 2007, the remainder of KRW 35 million to April 30, 2016, and E and F guaranteed this.

On December 2007, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 10 million to D.

B. Around November 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Hadan342, 2008Ma34342, and the above court declared bankrupt against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2009, and on May 8, 2009, rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”).

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the application for immunity in the instant case did not indicate D’s loan claims against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan claims”).

D On April 28, 2014, on the part of the Defendant, D transferred 45 million won loan claims against the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and D notified the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to D.

Since June 12, 2014, D transferred to the Defendant the amount of KRW 35 million against the Plaintiff by modifying the amount of claims against the Plaintiff. On the same day, D notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that, at the time of the application for immunity in this case, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant loan claims against the Plaintiff in the creditor list was omitted from several places, such as loan and guarantee, and the sale of bonds, etc., and that it did not constitute a bad faith, and thus, it did not err in omission. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant loan obligations against D and the Defendant’s obligations on the premise thereof were also exempted by the decision for immunity in this case.

3. Determination Doctrine, Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.