1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is about 1. A of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The phrase “4,027,781 won” is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding “the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant loan claims”) to “the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant loan claim was exempted pursuant to the above immunity, and the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was not exempt from the Plaintiff’s liability pursuant to Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, since the Plaintiff omitted the instant loan claim in bad faith from the obligee’s list.

B. In other words, a property claim arising from a cause that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt, and a bankruptcy claim becomes final and conclusive under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and in principle, a decision to grant immunity to the debtor becomes final and conclusive.

However, the proviso of Article 566(7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that a debtor shall be deemed as one of non-exempt claims, in bad faith, that are, “a claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list” refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Therefore, 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 non-exempt claims as prescribed by the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is difficult to enter it in the creditors’ list by negligence