1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Hadan5624, 2015Ma5627; and (b) received immunity from immunity on June 20, 2016.

7. 5. Finality has been established.

At the time of the above application, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gadan77966 Decided November 27, 2008 rendered the judgment on the lease deposit case against the plaintiff by the defendant, but it was conducted by service by public notice, and the above claim was not accurately known, and thus, it was omitted in the list of creditors.

However, as long as the plaintiff did not neglect the above bonds in bad faith, the effect of exemption is not limited to the above bonds, the plaintiff's refusal of compulsory execution is sought.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a debtor's right not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" refers to a case where the debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, is not entered 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, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor was negligent

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010) comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and exemption from liability is 23 cases involving financial institutions, such as Seoul Guarantee Insurance, National Bank, and various lending enterprises, such as housing purchase funds, business funds, living funds, guaranteed liability, and communication fees; (b) while the Plaintiff’s liability against the Defendant is the obligation of real estate lease deposit with the principal amounting to KRW 40 million between individuals, it is about the principal and interest of the said lease deposit.