1. The defendant's plaintiff is based on the Seoul District Court's Southern Branch of the Seoul District Court Decision 2003Kadan62341 delivered on January 30, 2004.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants, as creditors of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”), was sentenced to a favorable judgment of the Defendants on January 30, 2004 (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2004.

B. On June 27, 2006, the Defendants rendered the instant judgment as the executive title, and received the order of seizure and collection as to the Defendant’s claim for medical expenses against the National Health Insurance Corporation under the Incheon District Court 2006TT 4810.

C. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Incheon District Court 2015Hadan100017, and was ordered to grant immunity on December 22, 2015, by 100015, and the above immunity became final and conclusive on July 6, 2016. At that time, the list of creditors omitted the entry of the instant loan claim in the list of creditors.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) The plaintiff did not know the loan debt of this case at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption, and omitted the entry in the creditor list. Therefore, the plaintiff is exempted from the liability for the loan debt.

(2) Since Defendant C was aware of the existence of the instant loan claim, the Plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors, the Plaintiff is not exempt from liability for the said claim.

B. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, when the obligor 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 provision, but otherwise, the obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation.