1. The Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff is based on the executory exemplification of the sales price case No. 2015No. 47741.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the purchase price, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da175552, which became final and conclusive.

In order to extend the extinctive prescription period of the foregoing judgment claim (hereinafter “instant claim”), the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff at this court (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) on September 2015. On January 12, 2016, the Defendant was rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff in the instant case that was proceeding by public notice, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On May 30, 2011, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and exemption from liability at the Gwangju District Court 2010Da4299 and the lower end 4299, and the same year.

6. 14. Immunity became final and conclusive.

The Plaintiff did not separately enter the instant claim in the list of creditors at the time of applying for exemption, etc. as above.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The term “claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to whether it constitutes a immunity claim refers to the case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Thus, when 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 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation by negligence, even if he did not enter it in the creditors’ list, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act, and the plaintiff at the time of applying for immunity, etc.