1. The Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant, including KRW 6,941,609 and interest thereon, and damages for delay.

1. On January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a loan of KRW 15 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”); and (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff is liable for the balance of the relevant loan and delayed payment damages against the Defendant; and (c) subsequently, on March 16, 2017, filed an application for bankruptcy or exemption with the Daegu District Court for immunity on August 31, 2017 (2017, 865, 2017Hadan865, 2017, 865, 2017, 205), and the said decision became final and conclusive on September 15, 2017; and (d) the fact that the Defendant was not written in the list of creditors submitted by the said court by the Plaintiff at the time does not conflict between the parties; or (e) it is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in each of subparagraphs 1 through 4, 1, 2, and 3 evidence.

According to the above facts of recognition, the claim of this case was exempted from the immunity decision, and there is a benefit of confirmation as long as the defendant contests this decision.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity. As such, the instant loan claims constitute “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, should be excluded from the scope of immunity.

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 is not entered in the list of creditors despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted." Thus, when the debtor 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 if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is erroneous in the list of creditors.