1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant’s basic facts on April 5, 2017 and

4. 17. Around April 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the combination of goods with the Plaintiff and delivered the goods to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff was in arrears from April 2018, with the installment payments and the installment payments of the goods.

On November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Suwon District Court. On September 27, 2019, the decision of immunity became final and conclusive on September 27, 2019. The list of creditors of the decision of immunity did not indicate the payment of the debt of the above aid and household household product against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the list of creditors of the decision to grant immunity of this case does not specify the defendant as the creditor, but that is, since the plaintiff did not know the existence of the debt without negligence, the effect of the decision to grant immunity extends to the above obligation.

“Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor 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, in cases where an 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 aforementioned provisions, but otherwise, if an obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the aforementioned provisions even if he/she did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). 5. The circumstance is that it can be acknowledged that the entire argument appears in the statement of Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, namely, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a notice demanding payment from around April 2018 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s employees and employees on July 12, 20.