면책확인
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant in KRW 83,856,955 was discharged.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6's evidence and arguments as to the cause of the claim, the defendant holds against the plaintiff the claim stated in the order based on the decision of the Promissory Notes No. 2007da117436, and the defendant has been subject to the decision of the court of this case to seize and collect the claim under the order of seizure and collection. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Jeonju District Court 2010Hadan2383, 2010Ha2383 and 2010Ha2383 and confirmed the fact that the decision was made on August 5, 201. According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above decision of immunity, the plaintiff's debt against the defendant was exempted pursuant to the above decision of immunity, and as long as the defendant is disputing the effect of discharge, the defendant has a benefit to seek its confirmation as the plaintiff.
2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not state the defendant's claim in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure. Since the above claim constitutes non-exempt claims as stipulated by the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "Act"), the defendant's claim under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Act refers to a claim that the debtor knows the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the creditor's list. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of the obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims under the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The plaintiff's claim was repaid the obligation against the defendant upon bankruptcy exemption, the plaintiff's husband and the plaintiff's joint payment was stated in the above judgment, but there was no dispute between the parties.