청구이의
1. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. On May 12, 2004, Non-party B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) obtained a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on June 22, 2004 as this Court No. 2004Gada1070, and became final and conclusive on May 12, 2004, and the Defendant, the inheritor of the Deceased, applied for the execution clause succession to this court and obtained the succession execution clause. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy with the Daejeon District Court No. 2673, Daejeon District Court No. 2013, May 2012, 2013, the Plaintiff was decided to grant the exemption exemption and confirmed on May 23, 2005. The Plaintiff did not conflict between the parties.
2. Each assertion by the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not enter the claim against the plaintiff in the creditor list because he did not know of the claim against the plaintiff at all at the time of the application for the above discharge, and that the defendant's claim against the deceased and his successor is effective in the discharge pursuant to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not enter the claim against the plaintiff in bad faith at the time of the plaintiff's application for the discharge discharge permission in the creditor list and did not enter it in bad faith.
3. Determination. A.
The grounds for excluding claims not entered in the list of creditors under Article 566(7) of the above Act are to protect creditors who are at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the above procedure, given that if there are creditors not entered in the list of creditors, their creditors are deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the procedure for immunity, and accordingly, the permission and confirmation of immunity without any objective verification as to the grounds for non-permission of immunity under Article 544 of the above Act, is to protect creditors who are at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the procedure.
Therefore, it is true.