1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 6, 2012, upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity from Seoul Central District Court 201Da1260.

The Plaintiff knew that all obligations owed to the Defendant were repaid by C, a guarantor, and omitted in the list of creditors by mistake at the time of the petition of bankruptcy.

The plaintiff intentionally omitted his/her obligation to the defendant and thus there is no reason to apply for bankruptcy. Thus, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the exemption of obligation to the defendant.

2. “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, does not 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if an obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation by negligence, even if the obligor failed to enter it in the list of creditors, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the above provision,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30478, Jul. 15, 2010). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant prior to the decision to grant immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed for reasons.