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 7,000,000 from the Defendant around December 26, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) b.

On the other hand, on December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity for individual bankruptcy and immunity with the Ulsan District Court 2016Hadan937, 2016Hadan937, and received immunity on April 21, 2017, and the aforementioned immunity became final and conclusive on May 9, 2017.

C. However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the above bankruptcy procedure did not contain the claim of this case.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to the cause of the claim, an obligor exempted from liability is exempted from all liabilities to the bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure. According to the above acknowledged facts, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant is exempted from liability, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim constitutes non-exempt claims under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, since the Plaintiff did not enter each of the instant claims in the creditors’ list in bad faith.

The term "claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act means a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if he was negligent.