1. The Plaintiff’s guaranteed liability of KRW 4,892,740 on July 16, 2008 and interest thereon are owed to the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, on July 16, 2008, received a loan from the Defendant under the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. The loan principal of this case is KRW 4,892,740 at the time of the closing of argument in this case.

C. On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court (201Hadan7824, 2011, 7824); (b) declared bankrupt on January 19, 2012 by the said court; (c) was decided to grant immunity on May 9, 2012; and (d) the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on May 30, 2012; and (c) at the time the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 2 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The obligor who has been exempted from the liability to determine the cause of the claim is exempted from all obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditor except distribution under the bankruptcy procedure (the main sentence of Article 565 and Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability owed to the Defendant is also exempted.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the plaintiff did not enter the joint and several debt in the creditor list in bad faith, the above debt does not be exempted.

“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to immunity, and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, if the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the aforementioned provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation of this case, which is the wife in 208, while making a request for immunity in 201.