1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

The five-year extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s claim against Nonparty Samsung Card Co., Ltd. is applied to the claim arising from commercial activities. Since the date of non-party B’s delinquency in payment of the loan falls on May 21, 2002, the extinctive prescription of the above loan was completed on June 1, 2007. Even if this is not so, it is merely a mere fact that the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the list of creditors at the time when the immunity was granted by Incheon District Court 2017No719, and is not by bad faith. Thus, the Defendant’s claim based on the enforcement title stated in the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was also exempted, and compulsory execution based on the enforcement title stated in the purport

First of all, as to the claim of extinctive prescription, the non-party Samsung Card Co., Ltd. received a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the guarantor, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2002Da403012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 16, 2003. Since the Plaintiff, the transferee, filed a claim against the Defendant for the transfer money with the court on May 18, 201, and the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff’s assertion that applied for the payment order of this case based on the claim for the expiration of extinctive prescription is without merit.

Next, Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for exceptions to immunity claims, “a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, he/she does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence