The plaintiff's certificate of notary public C office against the defendant is based on money loan contract No. 628 of 2009.

Facts of recognition

A. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 22 million to the Defendant to the Defendant until December 23, 2009. In order to secure this, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption as a notary office C office No. 628 in December 23, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and exemption 1) On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt as Jeju District Court Decision 2018Hadan10027, and on July 2, 2019, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive upon the exemption from immunity under Jeju District Court Decision 2018Na10027. 2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s application for personal bankruptcy and exemption from immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the Defendant’s claim on the notarial deed (hereinafter “instant claim”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The debtor's property claim arising from the cause before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, that is, the bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from the effect of immunity, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), even if the decision to grant immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, and is not entered in the list

B. According to the above facts, the instant claim is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and its liability is exempted as the immunity decision against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed against the Plaintiff by the Defendant cannot be permitted.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim in this case and did not enter it in the list of creditors, he does not exempt the liability for the claim in this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

B. The debtor under the proviso and subparagraph 7 of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is in bad faith in the list of creditors.