beta
제주지방법원 2019.09.30 2019가단4976

면책확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In fact, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim with the Jeju District Court Decision 2010Da37618, Nov. 12, 2010, and was sentenced to a judgment to accept the claim (hereinafter “previous judgment”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 12,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from April 9, 201 to October 27, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “previous judgment”).

Upon commencement of compulsory execution based on the previous judgment, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order on July 25, 201 by designating the Plaintiff as the debtor and D Co., Ltd. as the third debtor, as the Daegu District Court 201TTTT No. 17581, and received the order of seizure and collection from the above court.

The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy or discharge with the Daegu District Court No. 2012Hadan4039, 2012 4039, and the said court rendered a declaration of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013, and rendered a decision to abolish bankruptcy procedures and a decision to grant immunity on May 23, 2013.

The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 8, 2013.

However, at the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption, the plaintiff did not enter the claim established by the previous judgment against the plaintiff in the list of creditors submitted to the court.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the Plaintiff’s petition for bankruptcy or exemption, the Plaintiff stated the obligation to all creditors who memory in the list of creditors at the time of the Plaintiff’s petition for bankruptcy or exemption. However, the obligation to the Defendant was omitted from the wind that was forgotten, and the Plaintiff did not intentionally omit the obligation to the Defendant, which was caused by negligence.

In addition, although the defendant puts the opportunity for the defendant to raise an objection to the plaintiff's application for immunity, the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's application for immunity in the process of immunity.

Even if there was no reason to deny the Plaintiff from immunity, the Plaintiff is entitled to grant immunity.