1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Seoul Central District Court 2006Hadan8278, and was declared bankrupt on June 26, 2006, and filed an application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 2006Ma7768, and was granted immunity on August 25, 2006.

B. At around 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of the existence of a surety obligation against the Defendant, which was filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaso280518, and became aware of the omission of the Defendant’s application for immunity in the creditor list at the time of the bankruptcy.

C. Since the Defendant’s guarantee obligation against the Plaintiff occurred around May 1995 and occurred from 2006 before the application for immunity from bankruptcy was filed, the Plaintiff did not neglect the Defendant’s list with knowledge of the existence of the guaranteed obligation against the Defendant at the time of the application for bankruptcy and immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the guaranteed obligation against the Defendant was exempted from the obligation.

2. Determination

A. "Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "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, 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 Act even if the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation. However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above Act even if the debtor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010)

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff by this Court No. 2014Gapo280518 against the Plaintiff seeking discharge of the guaranteed obligation for which the Plaintiff sought discharge in this case, and accordingly, pursuant to Article 5-3(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.