추심금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 31, 2015, Daejeon District Court 2015da10759, based on the original copy of the recommendation for reconciliation in the claim case, such as wages, etc., against the Plaintiff for the new construction business (hereinafter “new construction business”), the Plaintiff received the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant of the new construction business under Daejeon District Court 2015Kadan1521 on March 31, 2015; the Plaintiff received the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant of the new construction business on October 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant collection order”) and delivered the said order to the Defendant on October 5, 2015 upon receipt of the provisional seizure order under the same court 2015TTT13213 on October 2, 2015.
2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the new business was declared bankrupt after the collection order of this case, and the plaintiff lost its ability to collect.
If bankruptcy is declared, any bankruptcy creditor is prohibited from exercising his/her individual right, and he/she can obtain the satisfaction only by participating in the bankruptcy procedure (Article 424 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and any compulsory execution, provisional seizure or provisional disposition against any property belonging to the bankruptcy estate based on the bankruptcy claim shall lose its effect against the bankruptcy estate (main sentence of Article 348(1) of the same Act), and even in cases where any compulsory execution has been effected prior to the declaration of bankruptcy based on the estate claim, such as wage claim, etc., even if the compulsory execution is effected prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, such compulsory execution
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2006Ma260, Jun. 27, 2008). According to the evidence No. 1, new one business is recognized as having been declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court on December 16, 2015.
Therefore, even if the plaintiff's claim against the new one is the estate claim, which is the wage claim, the collection order of this case against the defendant of the new one business, which is the property belonging to the bankruptcy estate before the bankruptcy is declared, becomes invalid due to the bankruptcy declaration.