beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단5328425

대여금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, while entering into a credit card transaction agreement and a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant, approved that the credit card holders’ credit card holders’ terms and conditions and the basic terms and conditions for the loan transaction were applied, and the damages for delay determined by the Plaintiff were to comply with the interest rate

(unit : Won) A

B. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff’s credit card use amount and the principal and interest of loan (hereinafter “loan claim”) against the Defendant are as follows.

(unit: Won)

C. On the other hand, on April 10, 2015, the Defendant filed an individual rehabilitation application with the Seoul Central District Court 2015da59415 and proceeded with the individual rehabilitation procedure. In the above rehabilitation procedure, the Plaintiff reported the instant loan claims as individual rehabilitation claims and confirmed the instant loan claims as they were stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and decided to authorize the repayment plan on March 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. Article 603(1) and (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that where a creditor recorded in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors fails to file an application for a final judgment on an individual rehabilitation claim inspection within the objection period, or where such application is rejected, a claim is confirmed in accordance with the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and where any confirmed individual rehabilitation claim is entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, such entry shall have the same effect as a final judgment on all of the individual rehabilitation creditors. Therefore, there is no benefit in a lawsuit

B. In the instant case, the fact that the instant loan claims were reported as individual rehabilitation claims and confirmed as they were stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, and the fact that a decision to authorize the repayment plan was rendered in the said individual rehabilitation procedure is as seen earlier, and thus, this part is ultimately relevant