1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

purport.

On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim that KRW 10,00,000 remains to the Defendant on September 29, 2014; the term “base interest rate of 9%”; the term “8%” below the loan interest rate of less than three months”; the term “9% of the loan interest rate of 9%; the highest damages rate of 17% as of September 5, 2019 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”); and the obligation of this case remains at KRW 12,568,580 as of September 5, 2019 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 8,296,803, interest rate of KRW 4,271,777)”; or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account all the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 12,568,580 won and delay damages for 8,296,803 won.

Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the defendant's defense for discharge refers to a case where the debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant discharge, and fails to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, if 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 if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the creditor list by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor did not enter it in the creditor list.

The reason why a claim that is 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, without any objective verification of the reason for refusing to grant immunity as stipulated in Article 564 of the above Act.