1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”) with the Daegu District Court Decision 2010Hadan4370, 2010 and 4370, and received a decision of immunity from the said court, and the said decision became final and conclusive on March 1, 2011.

B. When submitting a list of creditors to the Daegu District Court at the time of the bankruptcy and application for immunity in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation of KRW 20,44 million (hereinafter “instant obligation”) arising under the monetary loan agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on February 20, 2003.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the debt of this case against the defendant was not entered in the list of creditors, but this asserted that the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the entry due to the plaintiff's negligence at the time of application for immunity from bankruptcy, and that the debt of this case was exempted according to the Daegu District Court's immunity.

3. Article 566 subparag. 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 before immunity is granted, and the obligor fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, if 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 same Act. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Act even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation. However, if the obligor was

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following evidence and arguments are examined as to the instant case.