1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s loans worth KRW 133,00,000 to the Defendant from April 18, 2011 to June 30, 201, based on the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the claim for loans.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the grounds for bankruptcy and discharge

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Defendant was declared bankrupt and granted immunity on January 20, 2015, which was subsequent to the occurrence of loan obligations, by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014, 8568, and 2014Hadan8568, which became final and conclusive around that time.

When a decision to grant immunity to the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, the obligation of the bankrupt shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit and the ability to enforce the claim which is normally due to the natural obligation.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is not exempt from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, since the Defendant did not enter the above loan claims in the creditor list in bad faith.

The fact that the defendant did not enter the above loan claims in the creditor list while filing a petition for bankruptcy does not conflict between the parties.

However, “Claims that are not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” means cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation before immunity is granted, and the obligor’s bad faith shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the details of the omitted obligation and the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether the obligor’s explanation and compliance with objective data are consistent. The obligor’s burden of proof for bad faith is borne by the obligee. The Defendant is in bad faith in the creditors’ list.