[2] In a case where the issue is whether the debtor's statement that he/she had no property despite having a private taxi transport license by filing an application for exemption and the date of the bankruptcy procedure constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement about his/her property status to the court" under Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the case holding that it is difficult to view that the creditor made a false statement about his/her property status in the bankruptcy procedure on the ground that the creditor clearly stated that he/she would be repaid through the sale of a transport license, under the circumstances where the creditor clearly stated that he/she would have obtained repayment of his/her claim through the sale of the transport license, and the debtor stated that he/she

The court below held that the re-appellant's act constitutes "when an obligor makes a false statement about his/her property status to a court" under Article 564 subparagraph 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, on the ground that the re-appellant held a personal taxi transport license equivalent to KRW 70 million in market value (hereinafter "transport license of this case") and stated that he/she did not own property at all through the date of bankruptcy proceedings and the application for exemption of this case." Thus, the court below held that the re-appellant's act constitutes "when the obligor made a false statement

However, according to the records, in applying for bankruptcy against the re-appellant, the creditor sold the transport license of this case, which is the only property of the re-appellant, and entered in the bankruptcy application that the re-appellant filed a petition for bankruptcy against the debtor for the repayment of the claim from the proceeds of the sale. The re-appellant stated on the first day of the bankruptcy procedure that "if a person operates a private taxi but does not incur any income, no property owned by the re-appellant exists, and no property owned by the re-appellant exists." The Re-Appellant stated in the written statement attached to the application for immunity that "after the termination of the bankruptcy," that the current occupation falls under "a personal taxi article," "no monthly income," and "a person who has not been reinstated after the bankruptcy declaration" under Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the Passenger Transport Service Act as the bankrupt, and that "the grounds for debt increase and insolvency" was loaned money from the financial right at the time when the personal taxi license of this case was acquired in 192, and that he operated the above private

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, in this case where the creditor clearly stated that he would receive the payment of the claim through the sale of the transport license of this case, the purport that the re-appellant's property is recognized and stated to the effect that he did not have any property other than the personal taxi transport license is stated to the effect that he did not have any property other than the personal taxi transport license. Thus, in the bankruptcy procedure of this case, it is difficult to view that the re-appellant made a false statement about his property status in the bankruptcy procedure of this case, and it is evident that the re-appellant's statement does not constitute a case where the re-appellant made a false statement at the time of the application for the exemption

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)