청구이의
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant lent KRW 74,00,000 to the Plaintiff around 2000.
Since the Defendant received partial reimbursement of KRW 17,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 57,000,000, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking loan payment under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008 Ghana 2440398. On November 12, 2008, the above court rendered a ruling to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 57,000,000 and delayed damages to the Defendant” on November 28, 2008, which became final and conclusive on November 28, 2008 (hereinafter “the Defendant’s claim”). (b) Following the expiration of the prescription period of the claim based on the above final and conclusive judgment, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the loan under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2018dan18200,000. The above court rendered a final and conclusive judgment to the Defendant on May 28, 2019 (hereinafter “the Defendant’s claim”).
On the other hand, on November 23, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption at the bottom 38512 and 2006 of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court at the end of 2006, and the above court rendered a ruling of exemption on February 8, 2007, and April 5, 2007. The above ruling of exemption became final and conclusive on April 20, 2007 (hereinafter “instant decision of exemption”). Accordingly, at the time of the above application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s loan claims in the list of creditors at the time of application for exemption.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts in this Court, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was omitted in the list of creditors of the instant decision on immunity, but it was merely omitted from the Plaintiff’s knowledge of its existence. As such, the Plaintiff still has the effect of exemption from immunity following the instant decision on immunity.
Therefore, based on the final judgment of this case.