1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Upon delegation to a certified judicial scrivener on February 18, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy with Suwon District Court No. 2010Hadan1375, and with the same court No. 2010, 1375, respectively. The Plaintiff filed a petition for discharge from liability from the above court on May 17, 2012, and the same year.

8. 13. Immunity granted;

(hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and exemption”). B.

The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the application for immunity was not indicated by the Defendant’s credit card payment claims against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant credit card payment claims”).

C. As of August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff bears the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 42,724,973 in total, including KRW 16,791,820 in the instant credit card payment, and damages for delay thereof, KRW 25,92,359 in the instant case, and KRW 10,794 in the cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's credit card payment claim against the plaintiff at the time of the application for immunity of this case is not entered in the list of creditors, but based on the simple acceptance by a certified judicial scrivener, and not in bad faith. Thus, the credit card payment claim of this case was exempted by the immunity decision of this case.

3. Determination is based on Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which provides for exceptions to the claim for immunity, and “a claim which is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not aware of the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, he did not enter it in the