1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant and the guaranteed amount of KRW 7 million, Daegu Bank Seadong Branch, Daegu Bank, Daegu, and the guarantee period from August 30, 2002 to August 29, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff failed to repay loans to Daegu Bank; the Defendant subrogated for KRW 7,145,506 to Daegu Bank on March 17, 2004; and the total amount of subrogated payments as of May 15, 2015 is KRW 20,242,945.

(hereinafter “instant amount of indemnity”). C.

On June 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daegu District Court No. 2006Hadan4131 and 2006Ha4571, and was granted immunity on December 13, 2006. The decision of immunity became final and conclusive on December 28, 2006. The Plaintiff did not enter the claim of indemnity in the list of creditors during the bankruptcy and exemption procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s motion for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff’s failure to enter the obligation of indemnity against the Defendant in the list of creditors at the time of the Plaintiff’s motion for bankruptcy and exemption does not constitute bad faith. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation of indemnity against the Defendant

B. Article 566 subparagraph 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 prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, if 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, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the obligor

2.2