1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the annexed sheet. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio.

(a) Where a decision to permit the discharge of liability to the debtor becomes final and conclusive, the debtor is exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, and in such cases, the bankruptcy claim shall lose the ability and executive capacity of filing a lawsuit that has ordinary claims as natural obligations.

Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, one of non-exempt claims, refers to cases where a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor is unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims as prescribed by the above Article even if he/she was negligent in not knowing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500 Decided January 11, 2007). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Hadan12316, 2014, 12316, and 2014, and received a decision of discharge from the above court on July 16, 2015 from the above court. The above decision of discharge becomes final and conclusive on July 31, 2015, and the fact that the defendant failed to enter the plaintiff's claim in the list of creditors prepared and submitted by the court upon filing a petition for bankruptcy and discharge.

However, in full view of all the following circumstances where evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and Nos. 1 through 6 revealed the purport of the entire pleadings, it may be viewed that the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff before receiving the above exemption decision, apart from the fact that the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff.