청구이의의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. In around 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap64470, hereinafter “instant lawsuit”), and on June 13, 2013, the Defendant rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 17,256,849 and KRW 5,00,000 per annum for KRW 25% per annum from July 19, 2012 to the date of full payment,” which became final and conclusive on July 6, 2013.
(hereinafter the above final judgment is referred to as “the final judgment of this case”). B.
On the other hand, around March 2016, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Daegu District Court. From the relevant case (Tgu District Court 2016, 1065, 2016Hadan1065) to March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to grant immunity. The list of creditors of the case is not written by the Defendant.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision to grant immunity”). [Grounds for recognition] : (a) the fact that there is no dispute; (b) the entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; and (c) Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff failed to enter the obligation against the Defendant in the list of creditors of the decision on immunity of this case by negligence, according to the above decision on immunity, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant was exempted. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment ought to be denied. 2) Since the claim under the final and conclusive judgment of this case is a damage claim arising from intentional tort, it constitutes non-exempt claim.
B. Article 625(2)4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that liability for damages caused by a tort by an obligor shall not be exempted.
Meanwhile, Article 682 of the Commercial Act provides that the insurer who has paid the insured amount if the damage was caused by the act of a third party shall have the right to the third party to the extent of the amount paid.