1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans on April 12, 2002, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim for loans on April 13, 201, which was the date of the above loan, was granted immunity and its decision remains effective on January 13, 2014, and thus, it is unlawful to claim payment of the above loan obligations, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it is unlawful to claim payment of the claim that cannot be claimed. The Defendant’s appeal is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. However, the Defendant’s subsequent appeal No. 7, page 13, alleged that the loan claim in this case is a claim that cannot be legalized.

As a result, bin is considered.

The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that an obligor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all liability for all obligations owed to any bankruptcy creditor, except distribution under the bankruptcy procedures.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim entitled to immunity shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit having ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, “a claim that is not recorded in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter the same in the creditors’ list. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under Article 56 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, but if the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, it is difficult to enter it in