채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The summary of the court’s decision on additional addition is governed by the judgment of the court of first instance.
A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the report of subsequent completion constitutes “the alteration of the report” under Article 152(4) and (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the Plaintiff asserts that “if an objection is raised to the rehabilitation claim, etc., the right holder holding the claim is merely a remedy against which the objection is confirmed through the final inspection judgment, and is a separate system from the subsequent supplementation of the report under Article 152 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff was reported as the rehabilitation security right but the right holder denied the rehabilitation security right and did not file a separate final inspection judgment on the rehabilitation claim regarding the commencement of the report, the Plaintiff holding the claim may “the alteration of the report” on the rehabilitation security right based on Article 152(4) and (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, unless there is any ground for not attributable to the Plaintiff with respect to the initial report.”
The above assertion made by the Plaintiff in this court is not significantly different from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance trial. In particular, the first instance court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion even after examining all the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, is justifiable. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is evident that even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is itself, KRW 377,564,61 of the rehabilitation security right reported after completion on June 15, 2016, is entirely included in the principal and interest of the rehabilitation security right initially reported by the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015.