1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on August 23, 1995 against "the defendant lent KRW 50 million to the plaintiff on August 23, 1995." The defendant brought a lawsuit against the plaintiff as loans of Seoul Southern District Court 2005Kadan49045. On November 9, 2005, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 50% per annum from December 31, 1995 to October 19, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" was finalized on November 26, 2005 by winning a favorable judgment.

(B) The Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan claims”).

The Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy with the District Court No. 2014Hadan423, and filed an application for immunity with the District Court No. 2014Do423 (hereinafter “instant application for immunity”), and received a decision to grant immunity from the said court on October 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on October 21, 2015.

C. At the time of the application for immunity of this case, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant loan claims in the creditor list.

On October 14, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with Seoul Southern District Court 2015Da53449 for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the instant loan claims. The Plaintiff asserted that no money was borrowed from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff’s assertion was accepted, and the judgment was rendered in favor of the Defendant on May 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1 and 5, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is 7.8 million won in fact, and in around 1996, it had already been considered that all of the claims were repaid during the auction procedure for corporeal movables, and some of the claims remain.

Even if the application for immunity of this case was filed, it was omitted in the list of creditors because it was impossible to memory the existence of the loan claim of this case to many creditors at the time of application for immunity of this case.