beta
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.02.05 2014가단17613

대여금 및 신용카드이용대금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Any property claim that accrues before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor constitutes a rehabilitation claim (Article 118 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and any rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in the rehabilitation procedures shall report his/her rehabilitation claim to the court within the reporting period set by the court.

(Article 148 of the Act). In addition, when a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan becomes final and conclusive, any entry in the table of rehabilitation creditors of rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan on the basis of the rehabilitation claim has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment on the debtor and rehabilitation creditors, etc. (Article 255(1) of the Act), and the entry above is deemed an executory power and any rehabilitation creditor

(2) (Article 255(2) of the Act). In addition, when a decision to grant authorization for rehabilitation claims has been rendered, it is unlawful for a rehabilitation creditor to file a lawsuit on the grounds that he/she loses the power to file a lawsuit for which he/she is normally responsible for discharge, except for the rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan or by the law

On July 7, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Gwangju District Court 2014da24471 on July 7, 2014, and obtained the decision to commence individual rehabilitation from the above court on September 30, 2014. The list of individual rehabilitation creditors prepared in the above individual rehabilitation procedure contains the Plaintiff’s claim stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and the fact that the decision to authorize the repayment plan of November 28, 2014 against the Defendant became final and conclusive at the time of the decision to authorize the repayment plan of November 28, 2014 can be recognized by this court or by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking the Plaintiff to implement the claim against the Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of