기타
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
The defendant is a creditor based on the payment order in the Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea116109 Decided December 8, 2009 against the plaintiff.
(hereinafter the above payment order is “instant payment order,” and bonds and obligations based thereon are “the instant bonds and obligations” (b).
The defendant collected part of the claim of this case by accepting the seizure and collection order based on the payment order of this case. The payment order of this case and the seizure and collection order based thereon were served on the plaintiff as follows.
(g) The recipient of the instant payment order 2009-11-23 (child) was the recipient of the instant payment order 2009-11-23 (child) and the debtor of the instant payment order 2010TTT 2353 and the support for the seizure and collection order 2012TT 183 and the collection order 2012TT 183 and the collection order 2012-03 and the collection order 2013TT 103 and the collection order 2013-07-15 (child) (child)
C. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Suwon District Court 2012Hadan7085, 2012Ma7085, and filed for adjudication of bankruptcy on May 14, 2013, and the decision became final and conclusive on August 27, 2013 upon the decision to grant immunity on August 12, 2013. The Defendant and the instant claim were not stated in the list of creditors.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Chief 1) The Plaintiff omitted the fact that there was the instant obligation even before the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and the decision to grant immunity, and there is no reason to omit it in the list of creditors. The Plaintiff was also exempted from liability since the Plaintiff did not unlawfully omit the instant obligation in the list of creditors. (2) The Defendant’s child was served with the Plaintiff’s child, and the seizure and collection of the claim based on the instant payment order was made several times thereafter, and the Plaintiff knew the existence of the instant claim.