1. The Defendant’s order for payment of gold for indemnity No. 9357, Sept. 1, 2016, which became final and conclusive on September 1, 2016, is based on the original copy of the order.

1. Chief;

A. The ground for the change in the attachment of the Plaintiff’s assertion is stated.

B. The Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the list despite being aware of the existence of the Defendant’s claim before immunity is granted. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not exempt from immunity pursuant to Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

2. On February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable for reimbursement obligations under the credit guarantee agreement concluded with the Defendant by the Plaintiff upon obtaining a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea on or around February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,048,892 and delayed damages and overdue payment procedure expenses to the Defendant. The Defendant was the Defendant’s obligation under the original order for payment of indemnity amount (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

(3) have been held.

In addition, if Suwon District Court 2016 2016, the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption under 3318, and recognized that the instant obligation was not entered in the creditor list.

According to the overall purport of the statement and change of the evidence No. 7, No. 7, and No. 10 (including branch numbers), the Plaintiff, at the time of the Defendant’s filing of the above payment order, did not reside in his/her domicile when he/she had been in bankruptcy. The Plaintiff’s mother received a written application for payment order, and due to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff’s obligation to guarantee the Industrial Bank of Korea upon filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption was also omitted in the creditor’s list.

Therefore, in full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have omitted the instant debt from the list of creditors when filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, and does not appear to have intentionally omitted the instant debt in the list of creditors.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is justified.