1. The principal of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court No. 2008Da89231) is 17,621.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the acquisition amount under this Court 2008 tea89231, and the above court ordered the payment on November 19, 2008, and the above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). B. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff upon the above payment order (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”).

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”) was declared bankrupt on June 8, 2015, and the decision to grant immunity on August 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The decision to grant immunity was finalized on August 28, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim to grant the instant decision in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that in the course of the bankruptcy and application for immunity of this case, the claim of this case was omitted in the creditor list, but this is not maliciously omitted, and the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant was also exempted by the immunity decision of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the decision of immunity of this case does not extend to the claim of this case, since the plaintiff knew the existence of the claim of this case in bad faith and omitted from the list of creditors.

3. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, 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 constitutes a non-exempt claim