청구이의
1. The defendant's 2007 Rossssi (No. 1739) dated November 30, 2007 against the plaintiff by the defendant's law firm.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 30, 2005, the Defendant lent KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff. On December 25, 2007, the Defendant agreed to be paid KRW 500,000 each month from May 25, 2007 to May 30, 2010, and on November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed as to the order of the said monetary loan contract to the Defendant.
B. On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court Decision 2009Hadan9516, 2009Da9517, and was declared bankrupt on August 27, 2010, and the decision to grant exemption was finalized on December 14, 2010.
C. However, while applying for the above bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff failed to report the above loan to the Defendant by negligence.
On December 11, 2017, the defendant was issued a seizure and collection order on the plaintiff's deposits, etc. based on the original copy of the above notarial deed, which is enforceable by Incheon District Court 2017TTT29566.
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, an obvious fact in this court, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a bankruptcy debtor who has been exempted from liability shall be exempted from all obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditor except for dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.
However, the decision of exemption against the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive on December 14, 2010, and since the debt of the loan of this case occurred prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not liable to pay the above debt to the defendant.
As a final and conclusive decision on the exemption from bankruptcy, the defendant cannot perform compulsory execution even if he/she holds the executive title to the loan claim of this case, and in cases of compulsory execution, the plaintiff can contest it with the objection suit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of enforcement power is justifiable.