1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "the obligor granted immunity shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for the distribution pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That this shall not apply to the following claims: Provided, That the obligor shall not be exempted from his/her liability for such claims, and subparagraph 7 provides that "the obligor shall not be maliciously recorded in the list of creditors: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the obligee has become aware that he/she

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" referred to in subparagraph 7 of the above refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors.

Therefore, even if a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007; 2009Ma225, Mar. 30, 2009). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the said provision even if the debtor was negligent in failing to enter it in the creditor list.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The Plaintiff’s return to the instant case and the sponsed, and the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy immunity on December 2, 2010, Busan District Court Decision 2010Hadan4963, 2010Da4963, and 2010Da4963, which became final and conclusive on September 15, 201, upon receipt of the decision to grant exemption on August 30, 201, and the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time, there is no dispute over the fact that the Defendant’s claim was omitted.

On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, B, around 3:08 on June 27, 2006, is driving a motor vehicle of “C” owned by the Plaintiff on the road before the Sinnam-Eup/Yandong Fire Station at the time of drinking.