대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed.
3. Action.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of loans with the Gwangju District Court Mapopo-gu Branch (2010 Ghana25737). On November 12, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment with respect to “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from October 10, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).
B. On September 24, 2009, the Defendant received a decision to grant immunity on October 19, 2010 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da25176, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Hau209Hau25176, and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on November 4, 2010.
The defendant did not enter the obligation against the plaintiff in the list of creditors at the time the above decision to grant immunity was made.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The debtor shall be entitled to any property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy as a bankruptcy claim,” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor so exempted shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted for any of the following claims.” Thus, even if bankruptcy claims are not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, they shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless they fall under any of the subparagraphs of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010).”