Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim seeking exemption with respect to the amount exceeding KRW 7,762,782 and the amount of the delayed damage.

1. On July 30, 2018, when the Suwon District Court 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability at the bottom of 5125,2016, and the said decision became final and conclusive upon obtaining immunity from immunity on July 30, 2018.

At the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation to return the advance payment fee to the Defendant in the creditors list.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine ex officio the determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case as to whether the exemption claim for the part exceeding KRW 7,762,782 of the lawsuit of this case and the amount of delayed damage is lawful.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the current rights or legal status, and thereby, it is recognized that it is the most effective and appropriate means to judge the plaintiff's legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the risk of unstable danger. Accordingly, the defendant is the person whose prior payment fee to be paid to the plaintiff is KRW 7,762,782, and the defendant is the person whose payment exceeds the above KRW 7,762,782 and its delayed damages. In other words, the defendant urged the plaintiff to pay it to the plaintiff or there is legal uncertainty in dispute between the parties.

Since there is no evidence to see that the part of the claim for confirmation of exemption as to the above part is invalid because there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not enter his/her obligations against the defendant in the creditor list due to negligence that did not think of his/her obligations against the defendant at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption. The plaintiff asserts that if the defendant's claims were omitted in the creditor list due to negligence as the plaintiff, the plaintiff's obligations against the defendant should not be exempted.

As to this, the defendant is not exempted from liability because the plaintiff knew that he was liable to the defendant at the time of the above application.

The argument is asserted.

B. Determination 1) Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act