1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 50,600,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from December 31, 2013 to March 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2006, the Defendant borrowed an amount of KRW 50,600,000 in cash, KRW 25,000,00 in total, and KRW 50,60,000 in credit card amount (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”), and on March 30, 2006, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate to the Plaintiff to repay KRW 50,000,000 to the end of December 2007.

B. After August 2012, the Defendant filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Busan District Court 2012Hadan2547, 2012Ha2,2547, and received a declaration of bankruptcy and a decision of immunity from the above court on October 4, 2013, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

However, the defendant did not enter the loan obligations of this case in the list of creditors submitted while filing the above bankruptcy and application for immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's main defense against this case's loan obligation against the plaintiff is exempted from the responsibility to grant the above immunity, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant did not enter the loan obligation of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith, the plaintiff did not have been exempted.

The term "claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor 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, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.

. As such,