양수금
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the attached Form. The plaintiff's judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is examined.
Where a decision to grant permission for discharge to the debtor becomes final and conclusive, the debtor shall be exempted from all his/her obligations to any bankruptcy creditor, and in such cases, the debtor shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims and the executory power of filing a lawsuit that becomes natural obligations.
Meanwhile, Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where the obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim as provided in the above Article even
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Defendant rendered a request for immunity from the Incheon District Court (2010Hadan255, Feb. 255, 2010) and received a decision of immunity from the said court on May 25, 2011, and the said decision of immunity becomes final and conclusive around June 9, 201; the fact that the Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of creditors prepared and submitted by the court while filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption.
However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, even though being aware of the existence of the instant claim, did not enter it in the list of creditors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff, upon taking over the instant claim around May 2005, can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings.