1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s claim for a loan under the payment order stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff was omitted from the creditor list by negligence at the time that the Plaintiff becomes bankrupt and immunity. Therefore, the exemption was granted according to

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order of the defendant should not be permitted.

2. Determination

A. “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation by negligence, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act.

Furthermore, in light of the purport of Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the aforementioned Act, whether an obligor’s bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors that does not coincide with the facts should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the details of omitted claims and the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether the obligor’s explanation and objective data are consistent with the obligor’s explanation and the circumstances leading up to the omission. Moreover, the obligor’s good faith cannot be easily acknowledged solely on the ground that the materials submitted by the obligor alone do not appear to have any reason for refusing to grant immunity (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da490

According to the purport of the whole argument in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is permitted to go bankrupt and to exempt from liability on July 27, 2007.