대여금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. As to the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap5101, which the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, seeking the return of loans based on the above judgment as the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription or the extension of prescription of claims based on the final judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap5101, the Defendant received a decision of bankruptcy
2. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides, “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from all liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.” Here, the exemption means that even though the debtor continues to exist in his/her obligation, he/she cannot compel the bankruptcy debtor to perform his/her obligation.
Therefore, when a decision to exempt a debtor from liability becomes final and conclusive, the claim shall lose the ordinary ability to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). In full view of the description of evidence No. 1, and the overall purport of the facts and arguments in this court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for loans as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap5101, Oct. 10, 2008 (hereinafter “Defendant”) with the Plaintiff for loans of KRW 131,477,093 and one hundred million among them, with the lower court’s judgment of KRW 30% from April 10, 208 to KRW 208, KRW 31,4777,093,093, and KRW 100,000,000 from April 10, 2008 to KRW 208,515,000,000.