대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The defendant, on February 19, 2003, borrowed KRW 70,000 from the plaintiff on February 19, 2003 without determining the due date for repayment, does not dispute between the parties.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above borrowed money and its delay damages to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "claim of this case").
2. Since the defendant's defense, etc. was cited by filing a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity, the defendant asserted that all bankruptcy claims, including the plaintiff's claim in this case, including the plaintiff's claim in this case, were exempted from liability, and considering the whole purport of the pleadings in light of the whole purport of the arguments in the statement in the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Hadan12179, 2014, the defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court on December 8, 2014, the bankruptcy and immunity application with the Seoul Central District Court on March 9, 2015, and the fact that the decision was confirmed after receiving the decision of exemption from liability on August 11, 2015 is recognized and the claim in this case was a bankruptcy claim that occurred before
Therefore, the defendant is exempt from the liability to repay the claim of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not exempt the claim of this case since he knew of the existence of the claim of this case in the course of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity.
In light of the above, Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, “the right of claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith,” refers to the case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in