대여금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified, considering the evidence submitted to the court of first instance.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding the following parts and the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
C) The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in the first instance part, referring to the 'the fact that it was known or known' in the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The addition;
A. In light of the following circumstances in light of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendant does not constitute non-exempt claims under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
① The Defendant thought that the debt related to the non-party company was a corporation’s debt, and there was no clear perception as to whether the Defendant’s joint and several debt was a joint and several debt, and thus, the Defendant thought that the instant debt against the Plaintiff was not a superior
In particular, while the bankruptcy proceedings of the non-party company and the defendant are simultaneously in progress, it was thought that both the obligations of the non-party company and the defendant will be settled, so it is not necessary to confirm the obligations separately.
(2) In addition to the provisions of law, the defendant was a representative, who did not have any awareness as to whether the defendant signed a loan contract on behalf of the corporation and as a joint guarantor.
③ The Plaintiff was aware or was aware of the Defendant’s bankruptcy and exemption cases through bankruptcy cases involving Nonparty Company.
B. As to the argument of the above Paragraph 1, even if the obligor was aware of the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim as stipulated under the above provision, even if it was failed to enter it in the creditor list by negligence. The above circumstance alleged by the Defendant is the same.