1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 16, 1998, the Defendant lent KRW 23,000,000 to C, and set the due date on February 28, 1999; the interest rate on February 28, 199; and the payment date on the 10th of each month; and the Plaintiff (C’s wife) jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against C.

When entering into a debt repayment contract with the Defendant, C, and the Plaintiff, on October 16, 1998, and the Plaintiff did not perform a monetary obligation under the said contract, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the document No. 2022 of 1998 at the 1998 General Law Office.

On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff and C filed an application for immunity from the respective bankruptcy and immunity under the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Hadan5060, 2014Ma5060, 2014Hadan5061, 2014, and the same court. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff on the instant notarial deed in the list of creditors.

On the other hand, C entered the Defendant’s claim for the loan based on the Notarial Deed against C in the list of creditors.

On October 6, 2015, the Daegu District Court rendered a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”) to the Plaintiff, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 21, 2015.

On the other hand, the decision of immunity against C was made on January 27, 2016, and the above decision became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted bankruptcy and exemption and omitted in the list of creditors because the Plaintiff could not memory the guaranteed debt based on the instant notarial deed against the Defendant, while filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption.

Since the plaintiff intentionally omitted his claim based on the notarial deed of this case in the list of creditors, the plaintiff's guarantee obligation based on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant should be exempted.