수표금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
A. On 197, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 8,500,000 and interest thereon, etc., and received the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the purpose of the extension of the statute of limitations of the established claim around 2007.
Around 2013, the defendant asserts that the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's claim was exempted, since he was declared bankrupt and exemption from liability by the court.
B. Determination is based on a property claim that occurred before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, namely, a bankruptcy claim, in principle, becomes final and conclusive when immunity on the debtor is granted pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the right to file a lawsuit and the power of executory power, which ordinarily becomes natural obligation, shall be extinguished and lose its liabilities.
In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional numbers), the defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption on October 2012, and received a notice of bankruptcy and exemption from immunity from the court in the Daegu District Court Decision 2012Hau 4576, 2012, 4576 decided June 18, 2013, and each of the above decisions can be recognized as the facts established on July 3, 2013. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant lost the ability to file a lawsuit and executory power that has ordinary claims as the immunity becomes final and conclusive regardless of whether a final and conclusive judgment has been made, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
(1) The plaintiff argues that since the defendant did not enter the plaintiff's claim in the list of creditors, the defendant's claim for exemption should be rejected. However, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant failed to do so in bad faith, and the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit). 2. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.