1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court for immunity on November 24, 2016, and the decision became final and conclusive on December 9, 2016.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the above bankruptcy procedure did not include the obligations to which the Plaintiff had claimed against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligations”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to the cause of the claim, an obligor exempted from liability is exempt from all liability to the bankruptcy creditor with respect to the whole amount of the obligation to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure. The instant obligation constitutes a property claim arising from a cause arising before the Plaintiff is declared bankrupt and constitutes a bankruptcy claim. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was exempted from liability.

3. The defendant's defense asserts that since the plaintiff did not enter the debt of this case in the creditor list in bad faith, the above debt constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, even if a debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the same Act, even if the debtor did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.

Whether or not an obligor's bad faith is determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the details of omitted bonds, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, and whether or not the obligor's explanation and objective data are consistent.