1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s new assertion, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's new assertion

A. The plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and filed a request for confirmation as to whether the plaintiff did not have any obligation omitted in the list of creditors by the mandatory, but did not discover that the debt of this case was omitted in the list of creditors by actual number of creditors.

Therefore, the claim in this case is not "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Act, and it does not constitute non-exempt claim.

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means 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 fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, when 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 provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, 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-

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff knew the existence of the instant obligation, but did not enter the instant obligation in the creditors list by negligence, the instant obligation constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned obligation constitutes non-exempt claim.