면책 확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 25, 2004, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff, and on April 25, 2004, issued a payment order with the Ulsan District Court 2004 tea6435 (the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based thereon) stating, “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment.”
B. On July 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity. On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff was granted immunity from the Ulsan District Court in 2009, 694, and this became final and conclusive on November 30, 2010.
The Plaintiff did not enter the instant debt in the list of creditors at the time of application for immunity.
C. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order of KRW 6080,000,000 against the Ulsan District Court 2014 tea1205 to extend the extinctive prescription period of the instant claim. On August 28, 2014, the Ulsan District Court 2014 Ghana15081, which was implemented as a lawsuit, and on August 28, 2014, “the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant, but it shall be paid KRW 1 million each on three occasions from September 30, 2014 to the last day of each month, and the decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending reconciliation”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4, Eul 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not mention the existence of the instant debt at the time of application for immunity in the list of creditors because it was impossible to memory the existence of the instant debt, and thus, the effect of immunity extends to the instant debt.
B. 1) Determination 1) The decision of recommending a compromise has the same effect as a judicial compromise if there is no objection within the prescribed period (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). On the other hand, a judicial compromise has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and if a compromise is made, the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished at the same time.