1. The Plaintiff’s loan 20,000,000 won and damages for delay against the Defendant have been discharged.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Defendant has a claim against the Plaintiff for loans of 20,000,000 won and damages for delay as Seoul District Court 98Gaso720429, Seoul Western District Court 2008Gaso97, Seoul Western District Court 2008Daso93497.

B. The Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on August 25, 1997 and entered the Republic of Korea on December 19, 2006, and was detained on June 3, 2008, and was released on parole on September 30, 201.

In each of the above litigation cases, both service on the plaintiff was made by public notice.

C. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted immunity by the Seoul Central District Court No. 201Hadan1526, 201, 11526, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 10 of the same year.

The defendant's above loan claims against the plaintiff are not included in the list of creditors of the above immunity decision (2,518,515,844 won in total, 14 creditors, and principal and interest).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity, the above loan claims were exempted since the plaintiff did not memory the defendant's loan claims at the time of application for immunity and did not enter in the list

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the exemption is limited because the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's loan claims in the creditor list in bad faith.

According to Article 566 (proviso) and (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor's claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith is not exempt from liability despite immunity.

Here, the case where a debtor is not recorded in the list of creditors in bad faith refers to the case where the debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not recorded in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor is unaware of the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute the above case even

In this case, the defendant extended the above loans to the plaintiff twice.