1. The Plaintiff’s mobile phone user amounting to KRW 1,723,430 according to the mobile communication contract dated August 21, 1998 against the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 1998, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to use mobile communications services with the Defendant and terminated on January 31, 2004, and the unpaid rate is KRW 1,723,430.

B. The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan7851, 2014Ka7851, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a petition for immunity. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted a decision to grant immunity, and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on April 15, 2015.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not state the Defendant’s claim under the above mobile communications service contract on the list of creditors submitted while making the above application for immunity.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleading, and purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditors except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.” Thus, barring any special circumstance, the obligation of the mobile phone use cost borne by the plaintiff to the defendant according to the decision of the exemption of this case was exempted.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant was omitted in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure list in bad faith.

“Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to claims that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but not entered in the list of creditors. Therefore, in a case where a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of an 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 is difficult to enter the same in the list of creditors