1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 9, with the overall purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation with the Daegu District Court 2010 Congress 55011 and was ordered to commence individual rehabilitation on January 11, 201, and the same year.

5.3. Receiving a decision to authorize the repayment plan;

B. After completing repayment according to the above repayment plan, on January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted immunity from the same court pursuant to Article 624(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment were omitted in preparing the list of creditors at the time of filing the application for individual rehabilitation, but this did not err by failing to know the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s claim without a certain residence, and the Defendant’s claim was omitted in bad faith. Thus, the Defendant’s liability for the claim stated in the claim against the Defendant should be exempted in accordance with Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was granted immunity pursuant to Article 624(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. According to Article 625(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, even if a debtor is granted immunity for claims not entered in the list of creditors, his/her liability is not exempted. Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, solely on the ground that he/she was unable to enter the list in the list of creditors because he/she was unaware of the existence of obligations owed to the Defendant and did not have any grounds for exemption from liability.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.