1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The effect of immunity, unless there are special circumstances, such as omitting claims in bad faith and failing to enter them in the list of creditors at the time of application for immunity, the right to file a lawsuit and the executive force of claims arising before the declaration of bankruptcy with respect to a debtor declared bankrupt and for whom immunity has been granted, shall be exempted by the effect of immunity, and shall lose the ability and executive force of claims ordinarily arising from natural debts.

Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, one of non-exempt claims, refers to cases where a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor is unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims as prescribed by the above Article even if he/she was negligent in not knowing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). According to the overall purport of the records and arguments in this case, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on February 8, 2007 in Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2006Hadan38495 (Bankruptcy), 2006Hadle4013 (Immunity) and the decision to grant immunity on May 30, 2007, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 14, 2007. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim arising prior to the above decision to grant immunity lost the ability and executive force of filing a suit with ordinary claims.

Since it appears that the claim of this case is not entered in the list of creditors submitted by the defendant at the time of filing a petition for the above bankruptcy and immunity, it is deemed that the claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

According to the records of this case, the claims of this case asserted by the plaintiff were established in the 1990s.