beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.12.18 2018가단19066

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's forced execution against the plaintiff by the Jeonju District Court 2007Kadan4891 is denied.

2. This.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On May 11, 2007, with respect to the case No. 2007Gadan4891, the Jeonju District Court indicated the following status as the party to the order as of May 11, 2007 based on the instant case. The judgment of this case (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

The judgment of this case was finalized on June 26, 2007.

Text of the Judgment of this case

1.Korea Asset Management Corporation:

A. With respect to KRW 22,871,096 and KRW 17,938,646 among them, 25% per annum from June 1, 2003 to the date of full payment, 1,06,402 per annum from October 29, 2002 to May 31, 2003; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 1,397,219 won per annum from January 31, 2003 to the date of full payment; and

B. B is jointly and severally with the Plaintiff to pay 19,301,381 won and 17,410,000 won and 25% interest per annum from June 1, 2003 to the date of full payment.

2) On October 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred the instant judgment claim against the Plaintiff to Ethyman Loan Co., Ltd.; on April 1, 2015, Ethyman Loan Co., Ltd.; and on December 4, 2017, Ethyman Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd changed the name of the Defendant respectively; 3) on April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for exemption with the Daejeon District Court 2017Hun-Ga734 on April 17, 2018 (hereinafter “instant decision of exemption”); and the instant decision of exemption became final and conclusive on February 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the decision on immunity of this case becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the Plaintiff’s liability against the Defendant is exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the part against the Plaintiff in the judgment of this case loses its executive force, and thus, the Defendant’s objection is against the Plaintiff.