1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was filed with the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Da9666, 2009Hadan964 and granted immunity on March 30, 201 by applying for bankruptcy and exemption. At the time of the above application, the Plaintiff failed to accurately recognize the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff and omitted the claim in the list of creditors.

However, as long as the plaintiff did not neglect the above bonds in bad faith, the effect of exemption is not limited to the above bonds, thus seeking confirmation.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a debtor's right not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" refers to a case where the debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, is not entered 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-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor was negligent

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010). 3. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the obligation to reimburse the Defendant prior to the decision to grant immunity, and that the Plaintiff failed to enter the same in the creditor list by negligence.

Even if the obligor is maliciously and not entered in the list of creditors, this constitutes “claim” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.