면책확인
In the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for exemption is dismissed.
A notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm C, 2011.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 21, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to borrow KRW 10 million from the Defendant, who is a credit service provider, and to repay KRW 12 million by adding the two million interest to the present lender.
B. On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to borrow KRW 15 million from the Defendant and to repay KRW 18 million as the person who presented an objection to the loan.
(c)
On September 1, 201, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and received KRW 6,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to repay a total of KRW 12 million over 120,000 each day from September 1, 201 to December 29, 201 of the same year with respect to the instant borrowed money.
(d)
The defendant has been delegated by the plaintiff with the authority to prepare a fair deed, and the notary public has entrusted the law firm C with the preparation of a fair deed for the borrowed money of this case.
On November 29, 2011, the foregoing corporation leased KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2011, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.
“The fairness certificate of monetary consumption and lending (hereinafter referred to as “Fair Deed”) was prepared.
E. Meanwhile, on May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and exemption with the lower court’s 5642,2012 at the end of 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and exemption, and the Defendant did not enter the same in the list of creditors.
The Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on September 28, 2012, and was granted decision to grant immunity on March 13, 2013 (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”).
The decision to grant immunity in this case became final and conclusive on March 28, 2013.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate ex officio, based on the determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of immunity.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there shall be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights.