1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 5,266,624 among the Plaintiff and KRW 4,368,293 among the Plaintiff, March 3, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 9, 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15.4% per annum to the Defendant at the interest rate of 15.4% per annum, 21% per annum, and 5 million per annum on April 8, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On October 21, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the District Court No. 201Hadan4383, 201Mo4377, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on July 5, 2012, and the decision of immunity on August 20, 2013, and each of the above decisions became final and conclusive.

C. At the time, the Defendant did not enter the instant loan claims in the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy and exemption case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 3, Eul's evidence 2, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan claim was also exempted pursuant to the declaration of bankruptcy and the decision of immunity, merely because it was not recorded in the list of creditors because it did not memory the instant loan claim. 2) The “claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to the case where the debtor knowingly knows the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor before the decision of immunity is made and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of the 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 legal provision, but if the debtor was unable to enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, even if he did not know of the existence of the obligation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010); and (1) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entry of evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff even from September 2, 2010 to July 6, 201.