1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant as a credit card member, joining the Defendant’s credit card, and is currently liable to the Defendant for loans and credit card bills totaling KRW 10,439,266, and damages for delay.

(hereinafter “instant debt”). (b)

On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court (2016:5699, 2016Hadan5700), and was granted immunity on July 25, 2017, and the said decision became final and conclusive on August 9, 2017.

The defendant was not stated in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff to the above court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts (as a result of the search of the case in the judicial department), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of pages), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of creditors due to the negligence that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the instant debt due to multiple debts, so the instant debt was exempted from its liability according to the decision to grant immunity. 2) The Defendant Plaintiff, while being aware of the existence of the instant debt intentionally, did not enter the list in the list of creditors. Therefore, the effect of immunity does not extend to the instant debt.

B. 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 an obligor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter it 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 above provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is not recorded