1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court No. 2011Gada1185011, and the above court rendered a judgment on May 26, 2011 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 8,504,462 won and 2,422,30 won, whichever is the rate of 20% per annum from May 25, 2011 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case"). (b)

The Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from bankruptcy and immunity with Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 2016 10703 and 2016 Ba10703. On November 30, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity to the Plaintiff, and the said decision became final and conclusive on December 16, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant immunity”). Meanwhile, at the time of the application for exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter claims based on the instant judgment in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should not be denied because the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the claim based on the judgment of this case at the time of the application for exemption of this case.

3. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy (hereinafter “the Act”) states that a debtor has been aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but failed to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, if the debtor 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 as prescribed by the above Act. However, if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the creditor list by negligence, it is prescribed by the above provision of the Act.