1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Incheon District Court 2014Da112143, and received a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures from the above court. The list of creditors submitted at the time included KRW 70 million of the Defendant’s loan claim (hereinafter “instant loan claim”).

On January 5, 2016, the above court decided to authorize the list of creditors including the Defendant’s claim and the repayment plan. However, after the above decision to authorize the repayment plan, the individual rehabilitation procedure was abolished on June 27, 2018 as the Plaintiff’s repayment plan was not implemented as planned. The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court 2018Hadan100755, 2018 2018, and received immunity from the above court on April 9, 2019.

The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

C. At the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant loan claims in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the loan claim of this case was omitted and immunity was granted, but since the above claim was not intentionally omitted, the loan of this case also has the effect of immunity decision.

3. Determination

A. “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 a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, 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 a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but is sentenced by Supreme Court Decision 2007Da111, Jan. 11, 200