1. The defendant shall pay 86 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 9, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's claim for the return of lease deposit against the defendant (Yincheon District Court 2005Gahap4761) from September 28, 2005 to "the defendant shall calculate the amount of KRW 90 million to the plaintiff at the rate of 20% per annum from July 9, 2005 to the date of full payment." The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on October 26 of the same year. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is a person who received repayment of KRW 4 million from the principal around November 2005.

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to extend the extinctive prescription of the above judgment, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 86 million and 20% interest per annum from July 9, 2005 to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the Seoul Central District Court's decision on July 21, 2009 became final and conclusive after the above judgment became final and conclusive, and that in this case, the plaintiff's claim is not intentionally omitted, but cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to immunity, and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor 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 provisions, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provisions of the Act.

Therefore, the obligor's bad faith should be determined by various circumstances such as the details of the omitted bond, the relationship between the obligor and the obligor, the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether the obligor's explanation and objective data are consistent.