1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of 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, 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 same Act. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Act.

The reason why a claim not entered in the list of creditors is to protect creditors who are at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the procedure.

Therefore, in light of the purport of Article 566 subparag. 7 of the aforementioned Act, whether a debtor's bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors that do not fit the facts should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the details of omitted claims and the obligor's checks; (b) the relationship between the obligee and the obligor; and (c) whether the obligor's vindications and objective materials are consistent with the obligor's explanation as to the circumstances surrounding the omission; and (d) the mere fact that materials submitted by the obligor alone do not appear to have any reason to deny immunity, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). 2.

Gap evidence 1 to .