1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded a mobile phone service contract and a mobile phone sales contract with the Defendant for the mobile phone service contract, and used each of the above circuits, but bears the Defendant’s current usage fee and the amount of 4,113,000 won for the mobile phone installment and its delayed payment damages.

(hereinafter “instant claim or obligation”). (b)

On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court (2017, 1198, 2017Hadan1201) on November 15, 2017, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

The claim of this case was not indicated in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff to the above court.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the Plaintiff did not enter the Plaintiff’s assertion in the list of creditors due to negligence that did not know the existence of the instant debt due to a large number of claims, the instant debt was exempted from its liability according to the above immunity decision.

B. The Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant did not intentionally enter the existence of the instant debt in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of the instant debt, and thus, the effect of immunity does not extend to the instant debt.

C. (1) The “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, fails 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, even if he did not enter it in the list by