The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 450,000,000 won and the interest rate of 13.4% per annum from April 29, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for monetary consumption lending and lending with the purport of setting the interest rate of KRW 450 million to the Defendant at 13.4% per annum, and on May 6, 2010, a fair deed was drawn up as No. 233 by a notary public C office in 2010 with respect to the above consumption lending and lending contract.

B. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant was declared bankrupt by the lower court at the end of 5219 at the Seoul Central District Court’s 2015. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant was granted immunity by 5219 at the same court’s 2015. The Plaintiff’s claim was not included in the list of creditors at the time of immunity.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 450 million and the delayed damages, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s exemption, the Defendant submitted reference materials to the effect that immunity was granted in the bankruptcy proceeding, and thus, the Defendant was exempted from the instant loan claims, and the Plaintiff re-appellanted to the effect that, despite being aware of the existence of the instant loan claims, the Plaintiff did not enter them in the creditors list in bad faith, and thus, constitutes a non-faced claim.

The phrase “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 a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor 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-examined claim under the above provision, but otherwise, the debtor does not constitute a liability.