1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff received a loan from our bank under the Defendant’s credit guarantee, and the Defendant subrogated to the Defendant’s loan obligation to our bank, as the Plaintiff failed to repay the loan obligation to our bank.

B. On January 20, 2012, the Defendant applied for provisional seizure of the real estate owned by the Defendant as Seoul Western District Court 2012Kadan601 by deeming the above claim for the indemnity as the preserved right, and received a decision of provisional seizure on January 25, 2012 from the said court.

C. On January 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for credit recovery for the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement with the Credit Counseling and Recovery Support Foundation.

The defendant filed a claim for reimbursement with Seoul Central District Court 2012Gapo570464, and the above court served a copy, etc. of the complaint on April 17, 2013 by public notice, and rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 6,654,094 won and 6,536,634 won with 15% per annum from July 25, 2012 to April 3, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. The Plaintiff filed an application with Seoul Western District Court for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Hadan3158, 2014Ma3158, and received the adjudication of bankruptcy on October 20, 2014 and the exemption from immunity on December 10, 2014 from the above court. At the time that the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability, the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement was omitted.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. On the ground of the instant claim, the Plaintiff did not include the obligation of indemnity against the Defendant in the list of creditors at the time the declaration of bankruptcy and the application for exemption was filed, but this was caused by negligence. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s obligation of indemnity against the Defendant was exempted by the effect of the above immunity decision

It is referred to in Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.