1. The Plaintiff’s interest at KRW 80,00,00 based on the monetary loan agreement of November 10, 2009 against the Defendant and interest thereon.

1. In light of the overall purport of pleadings Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each serial number, if any) of the basic facts, the Defendant loaned KRW 80 million to the Defendant on Nov. 10, 2009 by setting the due date on Feb. 9, 2010, and the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and immunity (Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2014Hadan100387, 2014, 10387, 2014, 10387, 2014), and the Plaintiff was granted immunity and immunity on Oct. 16, 2015, and the decision became final and conclusive on Oct. 16, 2015. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and immunity procedures can be acknowledged that the claims against the Defendant were not recorded.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claims against the defendant should be exempted since he did not state his obligations against the defendant at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity because the plaintiff failed to state his obligations against the defendant at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff against the plaintiff is not entered in the list of creditors because the plaintiff who was aware of the defendant's obligation against the defendant is likely to be indemnified from other joint and several sureties, and thus, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff constitutes non-exempt claim.

B. “Claims” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) that a debtor has not been entered in the creditor list in bad faith means a claim that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but failed to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, if the debtor 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 Act. However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is difficult to enter it in the creditor list by negligence.