1. The Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant, such as the Seoul Western District Court 2012 tea982 loan, is due to the payment order of the case.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Da4474, 2007Hadan4474 and received immunity on July 10, 2008, and the fact that the obligation under Paragraph (1) of the Disposition against the Defendant was omitted in the list of creditors of the decision to grant immunity does not conflict between the parties.

2. In a case where a decision to grant a discharge to a debtor is confirmed, the debtor is exempt from the responsibility for the whole amount of the debt to the bankruptcy creditor (main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Therefore, according to the above findings of recognition, a decision to grant discharge becomes final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, and the plaintiff's above obligation

In this regard, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not exempt the plaintiff's liability in accordance with subparagraph 7 of the proviso of the above Article since the plaintiff omitted the defendant's claim in bad faith, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only with the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.