1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant C and D shall be revoked.

2. Defendant C and D are jointly and severally with Defendant B.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the claim against Defendant B is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the fifth and seventh parts of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment]

A. The party’s assertion asserts that Defendant B was exempted from the Plaintiff’s obligation because he was declared bankrupt and released from immunity during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim is non-exemptable bonds, since the plaintiff failed in bad faith to the plaintiff's claim in the list of creditors submitted by defendant B in bankruptcy and exemption procedures.

B. Determination 1) Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from liability for all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor, except for dividends under the bankruptcy procedure. However, Article 566 proviso 7 of the same Act provides that a debtor shall not be exempted from liability for “a claim which is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith.” Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the same Act provides that “a claim which is not entered in the creditors’ list is not entered in the creditors’ list despite being aware of the existence of an obligation to a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision of discharge.” Thus, where a 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 same Act even if the debtor was unable to enter it in the creditors’ list by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 207).