1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the exemption from immunity was granted on November 30, 2016, and the Plaintiff omitted the obligation of the instant transfer money from the creditor list at the time the exemption from immunity was filed, and there was no reason to omit some of the obligation. Thus, the effect of the exemption from immunity does not change in the creditor list in bad faith. Thus, the effect of the exemption from immunity does not extend to the obligation of the instant transfer money.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim in bad faith which is not entered in the creditors' list" refers to a case where a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditors' 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 was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in this case, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the instant transfer money obligation (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and the original copy of the instant payment order reached the Plaintiff on April 22, 2013. The Defendant filed an application for an explanation of property based on the original copy of the instant payment order (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Ka3749, Dec. 19, 2014), and prepared and submitted a list of property after attending the meeting on the date of specification of property on which the Plaintiff took an oath on December 19, 2014; however, the Plaintiff was no longer effective from the Plaintiff on July 14, 2015 and its application for immunity.