The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 4,000,00 from the Defendant.

B. On November 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and discharge with Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2019Hadan2236, 2019, and filed a petition for immunity, and the decision became final and conclusive on December 11, 2019.

However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the above bankruptcy procedure does not contain the above loan obligations (hereinafter “instant obligation”) that the Plaintiff assumed against the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2017, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2017 tea6847 to seek the payment of the instant debt with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to Nonparty D the amount of KRW 4,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from May 11, 2008 to the date of full payment.” The said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 20, 2018 and became final and conclusive on February 6, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to the cause of the claim (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the obligor, who has been exempted, shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditor with respect to the whole amount of the obligation to the bankruptcy creditor, except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure

Therefore, the instant debt constitutes a bankruptcy claim as a property claim arising from a cause arising before the Plaintiff’s declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff’s above debt against the Defendant was exempted.

I would like to say.

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

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.