1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Grounds for this part of the basic facts are stated by the court of first instance.

1.(b)

the first section of the Seoul Rehabilitation District Court as the Seoul Rehabilitation Court;

1.(c)

In addition to correcting “200 Ghana 1119476” in the first sentence as “200 Ghana 1119476,” the part of “1.1 of the first instance judgment” is the same as the part of “1.1 of the first instance judgment.” As such, this shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Plaintiff exempted from liability based on the final decision of exemption from liability did not enter the list of creditors because it was not known of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time of the decision of exemption from liability, and thus, the instant claim of this case was exempted from liability based on the above decision of exemption from liability. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be denied because it is unfair. 2) If the enforcement force was excluded due to the final decision of exemption from liability of abuse of rights, it is not recovered that the claim is final and conclusive in the subsequent lawsuit, and even if it is a right based on a final decision, it is not allowed if the claim of this case

B. 1) Determination 1) Whether the effect of the decision on immunity of this case extends to the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement reimbursement (hereinafter “debtor Rehabilitation Act”)

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 (7) refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when 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 provisions of the same Act, but otherwise, the obligor is liable