1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt (Seoul District Court 2010Hadan2667), and the decision to grant immunity on December 27, 2010 (the same court 2010Ha2667) became final and conclusive around that time.

However, the plaintiff did not state the defendant in the list of creditors of the above case.

B. Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the cost of using credit cards against the Plaintiff (Seoul Northern District Court 2018 Ghana32983), and was sentenced on May 30, 2018 to “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 57,681,891 and its delay damages,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was unable to obtain the Defendant’s declaration of bankruptcy and exemption due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain the Defendant’s credit card usage fee claim, and thus, the Defendant was not indicated in the obligee’s list, and thus, the said credit card usage fee claim

B. (1) The phrase “claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 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 before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, 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, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-

Whether an obligor's bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors that does not fit the facts is sufficiently considered in light of the purport of Article 566 (7) of the above Act, and the details of the omitted claims, the relationship between the obligor and the obligee, and the obligor.