1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On August 7, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 71,046,575 to the “C” on August 7, 2006, and on August 19, 2008, C agreed with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay. At the time, the Defendant asserted that C jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation against the Plaintiff and sought payment of the said amount against the Defendant. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

In principle, when immunity on a debtor becomes final and conclusive pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), a bankruptcy claim is based on a property claim arising prior to the debtor’s declaration of bankruptcy, namely, a right to file a lawsuit and an executory power against the debtor as a natural obligation.

However, under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, “a claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith,” is not exempt from liability. The term “a claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list” in this context refers to the case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act. However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the creditors’ list by negligence, it constitutes

The reason why a claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, that creditor shall be exempted from the list.