1. The Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on a judgment on the case of loans claim in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Kadan401814.

1. The Plaintiff, as to the cause of the claim, received a decision of bankruptcy and exemption from liability in around 2012. The Plaintiff asserts that, at the time, it was omitted in the list of creditors because it was unaware of the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant, but this was not based on bad faith, and thus, the obligation

The following facts may be acknowledged if the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 contains an overall purport of the pleadings.

In other words, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for a loan claim against Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan401814, which became final and conclusive after winning the lawsuit on May 19, 2006. The contents of the lawsuit were that the plaintiff should pay the principal of the loan, 375 million won, and damages for delay.

(2) On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on the same day upon obtaining a ruling of bankruptcy and exemption from liability as the Jeonju District Court Decision 2012Hadan430, 2012Ha430.

(3) However, the Plaintiff did not include obligations based on this decision in the list of creditors.

Meanwhile, Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that an obligor who has received immunity is exempt from all liabilities, but the obligor is not in bad faith to the effect that the obligor is not in the list of creditors.

In this context, the "debt not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" means a case where a debtor knows the existence of a claim before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. The reason why the claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors is deprived of the opportunity for creditors omitted to promote fairness in the procedure of immunity by raising objections, etc. against immunity within the procedure of immunity, and accordingly, the immunity is granted without any objective verification procedure for the reason for refusing immunity as prescribed by the law.