1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff was a law firm Daegu General Law Office No. 881, 2003.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 9, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5 million from the Defendant, entrusted the Defendant with the preparation of the notarial deed, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant signed the notarial deed No. 881 of the 2003 Document No. 881 of the 2003 Document No. 881 of the 2003 Document No. 1400, Apr. 1, 2003 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “the notarial deed of this case”), and hereinafter “the debt based on the notarial deed of this case”).

B. On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Hadan99, 2013Ma99, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on June 27, 2013 and was granted exemption from immunity on October 23, 2013 by the said court. The said exemption from immunity became final and conclusive on November 7, 2013.

C. The obligation of the Defendant and the instant borrowed money is omitted in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of declaration of bankruptcy and application for exemption.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of borrowing KRW 5 million from the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the claim for the return of the lease deposit at the place of business operated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and terminate the instant loan obligations, and that, at the time of filing an application for declaration of bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation against the Defendant in the creditor list, and that, at the time of filing an application for exemption, the effect of exemption on the claim based on the Notarial Deed has yet to be

In this regard, the Defendant received the claim for the refund of lease deposit from the Plaintiff as collateral for the instant loan, and cannot be deemed to have extinguished the debt solely by the said transfer. Since the Plaintiff urged the Plaintiff to repay the said debt even at the time of filing an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption, it is malicious that the Plaintiff did not enter the obligation against the Defendant in the creditor list.