1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. According to each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the branch number in the case of a serial number) as to the cause of the claim, the court below issued a ruling of recommending settlement between the defendant and the original community credit cooperative on Feb. 26, 2003 that the defendant shall pay 30 million won and delay damages to the original community credit cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "reconciliation recommendation decision of this case") as of Feb. 26, 2003, as of Feb. 26, 2003, the court below decided that the defendant shall pay 30 million won and delay damages to the original community credit cooperative, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time, and the plaintiff was transferred the claim pursuant to the Reconciliation recommendation decision of this case on Jan. 24, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "claim of this case"), and notified the defendant that the transfer was made, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the acquisition amount and delay damages as stated in the

2. The Defendant asserted that, after the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case was made, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the responsibility for the instant claim upon the grant of immunity on June 9, 2008 (hereinafter “the grant immunity in this case”). As to this, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant claim in the creditor list in bad faith, the claim in this case constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), and still, the Defendant is liable.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted 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 non-exempt claims under the above provision, and the obligor's bad faith is not determined under Article 566 subparagraph