1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and Eul evidence No. 4 (including additional numbers):

On November 30, 2011, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da1749903, and was sentenced to the judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 3,05,942 won and 1,00,000 won which are calculated at the rate of 39% per annum from May 18, 2007 to the day of complete payment." The above judgment was finalized on December 27, 201.

(B) The Defendant’s above-mentioned claim against the Plaintiff is called “this case’s transferee-related claim,” and the above final judgment is referred to as “the final judgment of this case”).

On January 11, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) declared bankrupt on August 12, 2013; (b) was granted immunity on December 5, 2013; and (c) was finalized on December 201, 2013; and (d) the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while filing the said application for immunity did not indicate the instant claim for exemption.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of claim, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer-price was exempted pursuant to the above immunity, since it was impossible for the Plaintiff to know the existence of the claim for the transfer-price at the time of application for immunity because the Plaintiff did not deliver the said notice to the Plaintiff, which is a minor child who received the movable auction date notice, and the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the claim for the transfer-price at the time of application for immunity.

According to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff's notice of the auction date stated "from February 9, 2012 to 40 minutes of the auction date" is deemed to have been received by the plaintiff's son, but the above fact of recognition alone or in addition to the statement of evidence No. 3, the case at the time when the plaintiff applied for immunity.