1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 7, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Hadan967 and 2005Ma7598 (hereinafter “instant application for immunity”) and received the adjudication of bankruptcy on October 14, 2005, and the decision to grant immunity on December 23, 2005 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on January 12, 2006.

B. On March 31, 2003, Han Bank held the principal claim of KRW 10,093,200 as of March 31, 2003 and the interest claim of KRW 2,495,33 of this case (hereinafter “instant bonds and obligations”) with respect to the credit cards issued to the Plaintiff. On April 29, 2003, Han Bank transferred the instant bonds to the limited liability company specializing in the so-called Nowon Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and notified the Plaintiff thereof with content certification.

C. On November 20, 2008, the instant claim was subsequently transferred to the Defendant on December 16, 2010 through the Korea Asset Management Corporation Specialized in the Off-Seoul Special Metropolitan City First Asset-Backed Co., Ltd., and on February 12, 2010, the instant claim was finally transferred to the Defendant via the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

The Plaintiff did not enter the instant claims in the list of creditors in the bankruptcy and application procedure for immunity in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion omitted the claim of this case in the creditor list in the course of the instant bankruptcy and application for immunity, but this did not err in bad faith, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation of this case was also exempted by the immunity decision of this case.

B. Since the plaintiff alleged by the defendant was aware of the existence of the claim in this case and omitted from the list of creditors in bad faith, the effect of immunity in this case does not extend to the claim in this case.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”).