1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff’s principal amount of indemnity against the Defendant is KRW 12,058,214 and its interest.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff omitted the claim in the list of creditors while filing an application for immunity on the grounds that the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the claim in this case against the Defendant, and the claim in this case was a claim arising prior to the decision to grant immunity in this case and thus exempted from liability pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act”).

B. The Plaintiff did not enter the instant claim in the list of creditors in bad faith. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not exempt from liability pursuant to Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

3. Determination

A. “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to cases where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to immunity, and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor 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 obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence

The grounds for excluding claims not entered in the list of creditors are as follows: if there are creditors not entered in the list of creditors, the creditors are deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, and accordingly, the immunity is permitted without any objective verification of the grounds for non-permission of immunity stipulated in Article 564 of the above Act.