1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff received a loan from the Defendant on April 30, 2010, from the Defendant on October 8, 2014, and the principal of the loan as of October 8, 2014 is KRW 5,724,226, and the Plaintiff, on January 19, 2012, filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with this court on January 19, 2012, and was confirmed at the time when immunity was granted pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act on August 30, 2013. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation against the Defendant was exempted, barring any special circumstance.

In regard to this, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff did not have been exempted from liability because he did not enter the above loan debt in the list of creditors in bad faith. Thus, "claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act means that the debtor does not enter it in the list of creditors despite being aware of the existence of the debt against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted. Thus, if the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the debt, even though he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the debt, it does not constitute non-exempt claim under the above provision of the law. However, if the debtor knew the existence of the debt in the list of creditors, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, he did not enter it in the list of creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 201). The fact that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the debt against the defendant, as the plaintiff's administrator in bankruptcy procedure, and the amount remaining after being distributed distributed to the defendant.