1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant loaned KRW 9,500,00 to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff delayed the repayment of principal and interest, and the interest in arrears as of February 14, 2017 is KRW 16,38,084.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant obligation”) B. The Plaintiff’s principal and interest obligation against the Defendant.

On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Incheon District Court 2015Hadan3781, and on November 26, 2015, the decision to grant immunity was finalized on December 11, 2015 upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity in the Incheon District Court 2015Ma3786, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on December 11, 2015. The Plaintiff did not enter the instant obligation in the creditor list at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not enter the instant debt in the list of creditors as it was impossible to memory the instant debt at the time of the bankruptcy and exemption. As such, the instant debt is subject to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”).

(2) The Defendant Plaintiff, while being aware of the existence of the instant debt, did not intentionally enter the same in the list of creditors, was exempted from its liability in accordance with Article 566.

B. Determination 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”)

“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 Subparag. 7 refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of a claim prior to immunity and fails to enter such claim in the list of creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). As can be seen, the grounds for excluding claims not entered in the list of creditors are subject to immunity by the obligee who omitted objection against the immunity within the scope of immunity procedure, thereby ensuring fairness in the procedure for immunity.