beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나579

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2006, the Defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression as of March 30, 2006 and June 8, 2006, with the following: (a) the Defendant borrowed money from a bond company; (b) the amount to be paid is 9,00,000 won for a promissory note; (c) the power of attorney delegated the preparation of a notarial deed; (d) the interest shall be 4% per month; and (e) the interest shall be paid at any time by the obligee at any time; and (e) the Defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression as of June 8, 2006 with the name of the other party to the said promissory note and the creditor column of the said certificate of cash custody.

B. In around 2006, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court No. 32203 and 2006Hadan30709, and on May 23, 2008, the Defendant rendered a final decision of exemption from liability with respect to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and exemption”), and the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy and exemption cases are not included in the Plaintiff’s list.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion made a loan of KRW 9,00,000 to the defendant as of July 31, 2006. Since the defendant did not pay this, the defendant is liable to pay KRW 9,000,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

After three months from borrowing money from the plaintiff, the defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, and the defendant seems to have failed to enter the plaintiff's claim in the list of creditors considering that it is difficult to obtain exemption from liability due to fraudulent bankruptcy.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DR”) and does not constitute an exemption claim.

B. The defendant's assertion is that of the plaintiff.