beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.15 2017가단100492

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's Changwon District Court Decision 2009Gau21574 decided Nov. 13, 2009 is based on the defendant's decision against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the case of loans to the Plaintiff rendered by the bankruptcy trustee of Changwon District Court 2009Gaso21574, the Seoul District Court 2009Gau21574, which was brought against the Plaintiff by the bankrupt Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, on November 13, 2009, the said court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay amounting to KRW 4,447,110 and KRW 1,102,637, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time after the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff by public notice.

(hereinafter “instant loan claim” and “instant judgment”). B.

On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision to grant immunity”) as the District Court Decision 2014Da1253, and the said decision became final and conclusive on January 30, 2016.

C. As above, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while applying for immunity did not indicate the instant loan claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any property claim that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the debtor who has received immunity shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims." Thus, even if such claims are not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, a bankruptcy claim is exempted from its liability with respect to the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). According to the above facts recognized, the loans of this case shall be claims of this case: