1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Jeonju District Court Nos. 2013Hadan963 and 2013 963, and received a bankruptcy decision on November 13, 2014, and became final and conclusive around the time when immunity was granted on April 1, 2015. The list of creditors of the discharge case does not state the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant, such as the written purport of the claim.

B. The plaintiff was originally granted a loan from the non-exclusive credit cooperative, and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the trustee in bankruptcy of the non-exclusive credit cooperative, transferred the above claim to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation around October 6, 2003. This was notified to the plaintiff, and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the defendant was changed on November 11, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that although the plaintiff omitted the obligation against the defendant to the creditor list in the above bankruptcy and immunity case, the plaintiff did not neglect the creditor list to submit the creditor list falsely, the effect of the above immunity extends to the defendant's obligation against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation that the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant was exempted by the above immunity decision.

3. Determination is based on Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy, which states that the debtor does not enter his/her obligation in the list of creditors in bad faith, in the list of creditors, despite being aware of the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of the obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above Act. However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of the obligation, it is difficult to enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.