The plaintiff's 1,041,540 won against the defendant and interest thereon, and damages for delay are the debt certificate of May 12, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. As of May 12, 2020, the Plaintiff bears the unpaid charge of communications costs equivalent to KRW 1,041,540 against the Defendant.

(A) No. 2-1, May 12, 2020 issued by the Defendant, hereinafter “instant bonds or obligations”). (B)

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court (hereinafter “Seoul Rehabilitation Court”) on March 25, 2014, and was granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”). On April 11, 2014, the said immunity exemption became final and conclusive, and the Defendant and the instant claim were not included in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the effect of the immunity of this case extends to the debt of this case, since he/she did not know the existence of the debt of this case against the defendant at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy or immunity, and the defendant asserts to the effect that the exemption of this case extends to the debt of this case, since the plaintiff intentionally omitted the defendant, even if the plaintiff did not state the defendant on the creditor list by negligence, it constitutes non

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of 1 related legal doctrine provides for “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” as one of non-exempt claims.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by the debtor" means that the debtor is aware of the existence of obligations against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the list of creditors. In the event that the debtor was unaware of the existence of obligations, even if he was negligent, it does not constitute non-exempt claims.

In such cases, the obligor's bad faith with respect to the omission of the claim shall be the details of the omitted claim and the obligor's identity.