1. The Plaintiff’s acquisition amount of KRW 4,076,533 against the Defendant and the interest and delay damages therefrom were exempted.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2010, Hodcop Co., Ltd. transferred the Plaintiff’s loan (principal amount of KRW 3 million, interest thereon, etc.) to the Defendant (hereinafter “this case’s loan obligation”), and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim.

B. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Hadan979, 2012Ma977, and filed a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy on December 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s exemption from immunity on April 8, 2013 is subject to the instant exemption from immunity.

(3) On April 23, 2013, the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on April 23, 2013, and the obligation of this case in the above bankruptcy and immunity was not included in the list of creditors. [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (each entry, including the serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above findings of the determination, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was exempted from the immunity decision of this case, including the instant transfer money obligation omitted from the creditor list.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the decision of immunity in this case does not extend to the obligation of this case, since the plaintiff had been aware of the existence of the obligation of this case and omitted it in the list of creditors.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff reported the total amount of the claims of three creditors at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy or exemption, and (ii) the instant obligation against the Defendant is relatively small amounting to KRW 2,697,048, which would have not been omitted if the Plaintiff had known the existence of the instant obligation, rather than having known the existence of the instant obligation in bad faith, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff omitted the instant obligation due to negligence in the process of setting up a list of creditors, rather than having known the existence of the instant obligation in bad faith, rather than having omitted it.