면책 확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
(1) The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was exempted from the above immunity on December 9, 2008 because the plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Daejeon District Court 2007Hadan838 and the decision of immunity was made by the Daejeon District Court 2007Hadan838 and the decision of immunity became final and conclusive on December 9, 2008. At the time, the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the defendant in the list of creditors due to negligence for which the plaintiff did not confirm the defendant's obligations against the defendant and did not intentionally omit the defendant in the list of creditors. The plaintiff's claim is currently exempted from the above immunity by the above immunity decision.
(2) According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2-1, it is recognized that the decision of immunity became final and conclusive upon the plaintiff's declaration of bankruptcy and the decision of immunity as alleged, and according to the results of the search of the judgment in the above small-sum case Eul (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Gau14265 delivered on July 1, 200) and the above small-sum case, the defendant's claims are claims arising before the above declaration of bankruptcy, and barring any special circumstance, the above decision of immunity becomes final and conclusive, barring special circumstances.
Since the defendant claims are asserted to the effect that the defendant's claims constitute non-exempt claims, Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Act on the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy provides that "a claim that is not entered in the creditor's list in bad faith" shall be non-exempt claims, and the fact that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant in the creditor's list at the time of the above immunity decision does not conflict between the parties, but the "not entered in bad faith" in this context refers to the case where the debtor knows the existence of claims against the bankruptcy creditor prior to the immunity decision and fails to enter it in the creditor's list. Therefore, even if the debtor was aware of the existence of the obligations by negligence, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the above provision of the Act, but the debtor is different.