1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 13, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant; and (b) entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed with the fact that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is not performed; and (c) completed the notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

After that, the Plaintiff received a ruling of bankruptcy and exemption from liability under Daegu District Court 201Guggu District Court 1188, 201Hadan1188. At the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant would have sufficiently settled the Defendant’s obligations under the instant notarial deed, and did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the list of creditors.

Therefore, the above exemption decision has no effect on the defendant's claims under the notarial deed of this case, so compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be rejected.

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

According to Article 566, the obligor who has been exempted is exempted from the responsibility for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures, but according to Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the same Article, the obligor shall not be exempted from the liability for claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.

Here, “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if an obligor 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 under the above provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the above provision, even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing

. As such,