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. Facts of recognition;

A. Upon the Defendant’s Defendant’s mother D’s request, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 13,00,000 in total to the Defendant’s account on September 17, 2010, and KRW 13,000,000 in total on September 20, 201, and the Defendant used KRW 13,000,000 as construction cost.

B. On June 8, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption under the Incheon District Court No. 2014, 706, 2014Hadan708, and became final and conclusive upon which immunity was granted from this court (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The Plaintiff’s list of creditors of the said immunity omitted the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In other words, a claim on property arising from a cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, namely, a bankruptcy claim becomes final and conclusive pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and when immunity on the debtor becomes final and conclusive, in principle, the right to file a lawsuit, the liability of which is naturally extinguished and which has ordinary claims, shall lose the ability and executory power. Meanwhile, according to the proviso of Article 566(7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, “a claim which is not entered in the creditor list in bad faith by the debtor,” the liability shall not be exempted. In this context, “a claim which is not entered in the creditor list” refers to a case where the debtor knowingly knows the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and thus, if the debtor fails to know the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim as prescribed in the same Act even if he/she was negligent

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). In relation to the instant case, the Defendant and the Defendant have objection.