The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, asserts that the Defendant’s claim of KRW 12,065,083, based on the payment order stated in the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, was omitted from the creditor list by negligence at the time the Plaintiff was granted immunity from May 17, 2018, Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da100232, and thus, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be denied.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy (hereinafter “the Act”) refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, has failed to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, when 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 under the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation by negligence, even if he did not enter it in the creditor list, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above Act.

Furthermore, in light of the purport of Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the aforementioned Act, whether an obligor’s bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors that does not coincide with the facts should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the details of omitted claims and the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether the obligor’s explanation and objective data are consistent with the obligor’s explanation and the circumstances leading up to the omission. However, the obligor’s good faith should not be easily acknowledged solely on the ground that the materials submitted by the obligor alone do not appear to have any reason for refusing to grant immunity (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct.