1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs, which caused the claims, tried to pay credit to the maximum extent possible before filing a petition for bankruptcy, in order to avoid any trust and good faith accumulated through a long-term transaction with the Defendant.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, but they omitted the plaintiff's claims due to mistake, and thus, the effect of exemption from liability for the claims of this case is effective.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. From May 2008, the Defendant supplied Scambling to the Plaintiffs, and continued to receive part of the price from the Plaintiffs.

B. Plaintiff A filed an application for immunity with the Incheon District Court Decision 2012Hadan256, which was bankrupt and 2012Ha256, and was granted immunity from the above court on January 23, 2013.

C. Plaintiff B filed an application for immunity with the Incheon District Court No. 2012Hadan255, which was bankrupt and 2012Ha255, and was granted immunity from the above court on November 15, 2012.

The Plaintiffs shall pay the Defendant KRW 67,847,193 as of July 17, 2013, at least one million as of the end of each month from September 2013, and shall lose the benefit of the time and repay the full amount when the Plaintiffs fail to perform their duties.

“The performance confirmation document was drawn up and drawn up.”

E. After that, the Defendant received KRW 8,500,00 from the Plaintiffs from October 31, 2013 to September 25, 2015, and thereafter was not paid thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. 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 prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, the obligor does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation.