The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the decision was made upon grant of immunity by Seoul Central District Court 201Da10345, and that the decision was made. At the time the decision of immunity was made, the Plaintiff asserted that the exemption of immunity was effective for the above obligation, and that the exemption of immunity was not maliciously omitted from the obligation according to the judgment stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where the obligor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, does not enter it 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, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if the obligor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500 Decided January 11, 2007). According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of this case, the service of the plaintiff to the plaintiff in the case of purport of the claim is recognized by service by public notice, but the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the loan obligation to the defendant at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity on January 2005, 2005, while the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant around January 1, 2005 at the second date of the claim of this case, and made a statement to the effect that it is deemed that the above obligation was included at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity, but it was omitted by a certified judicial scrivener at the time of application for immunity. Accordingly, it is recognized that the plaintiff knew the existence of the loan obligation to the defendant at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity, but

Therefore, the obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant under the above judgment is about the debtor's rehabilitation and bankruptcy.