1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A mine credit union had a claim against the Plaintiff, such as a loan of KRW 49,00,000 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s debt”). The above claim was transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2009, to Associate Asset Management Co., Ltd., Ltd., on May 8, 2009, to the Dong Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd., on June 7, 2010, and to the Defendant on July 31, 2013.

B. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Gwangju District Court for bankruptcy and exemption, and received the ruling of bankruptcy on May 24, 2010, as the Gwangju District Court Decision 2009Hadan568, 2009Da5567, and was decided to grant exemption on November 10, 201.

However, the obligation to the above mine credit union was omitted in the list of creditors in the above bankruptcy and application case for immunity.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 6

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not possible to confirm the content of the obligation even if based on the notice of assignment of claims sent by the mine credit union, and thus, the Plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors without knowledge. Thus, the instant obligation was also exempted.

B. The Defendant’s assertion was omitted from the list of creditors due to negligence when the Plaintiff knew the existence of the obligation, and thus constitutes non-exempt claim.

3. Determination

A. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, then