1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,00,000,000 from the Defendant on October 11, 2010, and KRW 5,000,00 on December 13, 201.

B. In the event that the Plaintiff was liable for excessive debts, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on January 28, 2013, and was granted immunity on February 25, 2014 by filing an application for immunity with the District Court Decision 2012Hadan699, 2012Ma699.

At that time, the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff was written in the list of creditors' claims against all financial institutions and obligations against some individuals, but the obligations against the defendant were omitted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity, several debts owed to the defendant were omitted, but this did not have been omitted in bad faith. In response, the defendant asserts to the effect that, while filing for bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not enter loans owed to the defendant in the creditor list in bad faith, it constitutes non-exempt claims.

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and the obligor fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, if 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 above provision, but if the obligor 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 provision, even if the obligor

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010). (2) The following circumstances, i.e., the entire pleadings, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings.