1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant lent KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff around 2006.

On November 8, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming the payment of the unpaid amount among the loans as Busan District Court Decision 201Da226016, and was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 17,00,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 27, 2011 to the date of complete payment,” and the above judgment was finalized on December 2, 2011.

B. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted decision to grant immunity by Busan District Court 2015Da1822, and the said decision became final and conclusive on May 4, 2016.

In the list of creditors prepared by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s loans were omitted.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff intended to include the Defendant’s loan claims in preparing a list of creditors, the Plaintiff did not have any choice but to state the Defendant’s address due to lack of knowledge.

Therefore, since the plaintiff is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith, the effect of immunity extends to the defendant's loan claims.

B. The Plaintiff repaid KRW 8,000,000 among the loans around 2010.

3. Determination

A. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where the obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of a loan obligation against the Defendant prior to the decision to grant immunity (limited to the failure to know the Defendant’s address). As such, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s loan obligation in the list of creditors in bad faith.