beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.09.02 2015가단220911

임대차보증금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the housing owned by the Defendant and resides therein.

On July 26, 2014, a certificate of borrowing was issued from the Defendant to the effect that, although the said house was delivered to the Defendant on July 26, 2014, the deposit was not returned from the Defendant, and that the said deposit was repaid until December 31, 2014.

B. When the Defendant was unable to return the foregoing security deposit to the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed an application for exemption from liability on July 2015, 2015, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan6538, 2015Ma6538, and the Defendant filed an application for exemption from liability on March 17, 2016, which declared bankrupt with the Defendant on March 17, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to exempt the Defendant from liability, and the Plaintiff and the said list of creditors included KRW 50 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "the obligor granted immunity shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure." However, since the proviso provides that the obligor’s act of collecting bankruptcy claims after being granted immunity in the bankruptcy procedure does not constitute an exception to the proviso to Article 566 of the above Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da13156, Jun. 23, 2009). In light of the above legal principle, the obligor’s claim against the Defendant is a health claim and a claim against the Defendant arising from the property claim arising from the above bankruptcy prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, so long as the immunity decision against the Defendant has become final and conclusive, the Defendant’s liability is extinguished and has the ability to institute a lawsuit and executive force due to the natural obligation.