1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim was filed with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Hadan5337, 2013Ma5337, and was granted immunity on April 14, 2015 by filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff did not know of the claim for repair costs claim No. 2012Gapo25748, and thus, the said judgment amount was exempted from liability.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity, and the obligor fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, if the 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 a non-exempt claim under the above Act, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act.

The reason why a claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the creditor is deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, and accordingly, the exemption is permitted and confirmed without any objective verification as to the grounds for non-permission of immunity stipulated in Article 564 of the above Act, and thus, the debtor goes beyond the responsibility of the debtor to pay his/her obligations in principle. Thus, the creditor who is at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the above procedure

Therefore, the obligor's bad faith with respect to the preparation of the list of creditors that does not fit the facts is sufficiently considered in light of the purport of Article 566 (7) of the above Act.