1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on June 12, 2015 before the Seoul Southern District Court 2015.

On September 4, 2019, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the lower court 10272 at the 2019 lower court on November 14, 2019, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on November 29, 2019 upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity 10272 at the same court on November 14, 2019. The fact that the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant in the list of creditors does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant in the list of creditors, by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from the liability for all of the obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except distribution by bankruptcy proceedings, but the debtor is not exempt from liability for claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.

The debtor's right of claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith refers to the case where the debtor knows the existence of the obligation against the creditor before immunity is granted but fails to enter it in the list of creditors.

Therefore, the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the obligation indicated in the payment order before Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015th, 2015, but failed to enter it in the creditor list. On June 23, 2015, the original copy of the payment order was received from the workplace partner in the factory, which is the Plaintiff’s resident registration, or the Suwon District Court 2918th claim that the original copy of the payment order was served on the Plaintiff by the same method as August 24, 2016, even if following the Defendant’s assertion that the original copy of the payment order was served on the Plaintiff as of August 24, 2016.

There is no other evidence necessary for the proof.

On the other hand, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, he/she is still exempted from liability even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, so even if the plaintiff could have sufficiently known the obligation to the defendant.