1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Hadan10230, 2016Ma10230, 100230. The Plaintiff’s list submitted by the Plaintiff was indicated as the creditor, but the Defendant did not include one card company, new card company, Hyundai Capital, Gwangju Capital, Agricultural Cooperative Fund, Agricultural Credit Guarantee Fund, Korean Bank, Korean Bank, Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and B.

B. On September 13, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff, which was finalized on October 5, 2016.

C. On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a joint and several surety contract, where C, a corporation, one of which he/she served as the representative director, took out a loan of KRW 307,200,000 from the Defendant.

The principal amount of the above loan was KRW 107,774,380 at the time the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted bankruptcy and exemption and omitted the obligation of joint and several sureties against the Defendant in the list of creditors because it was impossible to memory the Defendant’s joint and several sureties obligation.

The Plaintiff does not intentionally omit the Defendant’s claim for the instant loans in the creditor list, and thus, the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability obligations against the Defendant should be exempted.

B. Determination 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”)

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 (7) refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, if 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, but otherwise, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation