1. The Defendant’s 130,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 31, 2010 to March 6, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 130,000,000 from the Plaintiff on October 31, 206 and the due date for repayment on December 30, 2010.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above borrowed money to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that he paid KRW 20,000,000 out of the above money, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since he/she received bankruptcy and exemption from liability on December 26, 2018 from the Jung-gu District Court 2017, 2285, 2017Hadan2285, Jung-gu District Court 2017Hadan2285, and that the lawsuit of this case is not to be exempted from liability on the ground that the defendant did not enter the claim

1) On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant declared bankrupt and decided to grant immunity without entering the claim of this case in the above bankruptcy procedure in the list of creditors. Thus, this is examined as to the grounds for exception to exemption under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, namely, whether the defendant did not enter it in bad faith. 2) The "claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to the case where the debtor, despite being aware of the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity, is not entered in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor was not aware of the existence of the obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claim under the above provisions, but otherwise, the debtor