구상금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 803,893,734 and the amount of KRW 213,892,381 from August 8, 2019 to the day of full payment.
1. Each fact in the separate sheet on the grounds of claim in the judgment on the grounds of claim does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 803,893,734 won and 213,892,381 won from August 8, 2019 to the date of full payment.
2. The Defendant was declared bankrupt on April 16, 2015 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan601 Decided the Defendant’s defense of immunity and was granted immunity exemption on June 15, 2015 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Ma601 Decided the same court. However, the Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement in the list of creditors at the time of the application for immunity exemption in question in the list of creditors.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the defendant did not have bad faith to the defendant, each of the above claims for indemnity shall not constitute non-exempt claims under the main sentence of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"). On the other hand, since the defendant did not enter the plaintiff's claim for indemnity in the list of creditors in bad faith, the plaintiff's claim for each of the above claims for indemnity shall constitute non-exempt claims under the main sentence of Article 566
“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to cases where an obligor 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. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act. However, the obligor knows the existence