1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff jointly and severally borrowed KRW 70,597,000 from the Defendant, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a money loan loan contract notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) and a claim based on the said notarial deed under the said notarial deed (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. On the other hand, on July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with Suwon District Court 2016dan10025 Decided July 15, 2016, and received a decision to authorize the repayment plan on August 11, 2016, and on April 17, 2017.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation does not include the claim in this case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the decision to authorize the repayment plan was made through the decision to commence individual rehabilitation, and the plaintiff is exempted from its liability except for the rights recognized by the above decision to authorize. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case was fully exempted, and thus, it is possible to seek the exclusion

B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received a decision to authorize the above court's repayment plan, but is not subject to a decision to grant immunity for rehabilitation claims, etc. after the payment is completed according to the above repayment plan, the effect of immunity in the individual rehabilitation procedure is limited to the claims indicated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors. As for claims not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, the effect of immunity does not affect the effect of immunity regardless of the debtor's intention or negligence (see Article 625 (2) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Thus, even if the Plaintiff omitted in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors without negligence, the above obligation shall not

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion.