beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016나39131

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

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 September 8, 2004, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 3.6 million and on November 28, 2004 due date (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) jointly with Nonparty C.

B. On April 23, 2007, the Defendant was declared bankrupt in the bankruptcy case at the Jung-gu District Court 2006Hadan7733, and on June 28, 2007, the Defendant was granted immunity from the 8076 exemption case at the Jung-gu District Court 2006 Jung-gu District Court on June 28, 2007, and the above immunity exemption became final and conclusive on July 14, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay 8,10,000 won out of the face value of the Promissory Notes of this case and the remaining 2,790,000 won have not been repaid. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant was exempted from the responsibility for the obligations of the Promissory Notes of this case upon the court’s decision to grant immunity.

B. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Act") provides that "any property claim against a debtor arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "any exempted debtor shall be exempted from all liabilities to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That any of the following claims shall not be exempted from liability." Thus, even if the bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, it shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the proviso of Article 566 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In light of these legal principles, the Defendant’s liability for the instant promissorysory note obligation claimed by the Plaintiff constitutes a bankruptcy claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy of the Defendant.