According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. On May 6, 2008, the appellant (hereinafter “appellant”) filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the first instance court on May 6, 2008, stating that he/she bears a total of KRW 158,29,306 on the application and that he/she and his/her relatives do not own property.

B. The appellant was declared bankrupt and the discontinuation of bankruptcy on June 10, 2008. However, the appellant filed an objection on the grounds that the appellant omitted related data on his/her relative's property. On August 1, 2008, the first instance court rendered a decision that the immunity of this case was not granted because the appellant did not allow the immunity of this case since the appellant owned a representative number (number, land category and size omitted) and the building on his/her ground that the appellant owned the building on his/her own on his/her own on his/her own and on his/her own the building on his/her own, the appellant's request for immunity of this case constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement on his/her property status," which is a ground for refusing to grant immunity of Article 564(1)43 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the first instance court rendered a decision that the immunity of this case was not granted.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

The appellant omitted the assets of the non-applicant 1, but this did not intentionally conceal the assets of the non-applicant 1, but did not state that the assets of the non-applicant 1 are not related to the appellant's obligations, and the decision of the first instance court that did not permit the application for immunity without additional opportunities for correction is unreasonable.

According to the records, while the appellant submitted the data to dispose of the assets in three persons other than the mother's application at the time of the application in this case, it is recognized that the appellant stated that the non-applicant 1 does not own any assets of his parents by omitting the fact that he owns the (number, land category, and area omitted) and the above ground buildings in the Nam-si, Nam-si, Busan. Therefore, the plaintiff's application in this case constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement about his financial status to the court" as provided in Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which clearly provides the grounds for non-permission

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is deemed that there exists a ground for refusing to grant immunity to the debtor, and that it is not reasonable to grant the exemption by discretion, so the debtor shall not be granted immunity, and the decision of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, so the appellant's appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)