1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to B’s account on April 29, 2011.

B. On December 14, 2016, B filed an individual rehabilitation application with the Busan District Court as the head of Busan District Court No. 2016dan1029, Jun. 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”); and B was subject to a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on June 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”); and was subject to a decision to obtain the rehabilitation plan approval on December 20, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff did not report the above KRW 100 million, which transferred from the rehabilitation procedure of this case to B’s account, as a rehabilitation claim, and the Defendant did not enter this on the rehabilitation claim list of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff could not have known that the rehabilitation procedure is in progress with respect to B, the Plaintiff could not report the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 100 million against B (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) to the rehabilitation court as a rehabilitation claim pursuant to Article 148 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”). Since the Defendant, a custodian of B, intentionally omitted the instant loan claim from the list of rehabilitation creditors and forfeited the instant loan claim, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount stated in the purport of the claim that the Plaintiff could have been reimbursed according to the approved rehabilitation plan if the instant loan claim was entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors.

B. Determination 1) In light of the purport of the system of the list of rehabilitation creditors under Article 147 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act to prevent rehabilitation creditors from suffering disadvantages by failing to report their own claims due to the lack of knowledge of rehabilitation procedures, in view of the purport of the system of the list of rehabilitation creditors under Article 147 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, barring any objective exceptional cases where non-existence of a rehabilitation claim is objectively evident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da256, Feb. 13,