logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가단244341
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a credit card transaction agreement with the Defendant and used the credit card. On January 28, 2008, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the principal of the credit card debt amounting to KRW 10,718,055 and its delayed damages, etc. The payment order issued by the said court on January 30, 2008 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was served on the Plaintiff’s resident registration address and confirmed on March 22, 2008.

(hereinafter referred to as the above, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant that became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant obligation”). B

On December 3, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the District Court Decision 2007Da9761 and at the bottom of 9758, and the above court rendered a decision of immunity on August 25, 2008 (hereinafter “instant decision of immunity”). The above decision became final and conclusive on September 9, 2008, and the Plaintiff did not include the instant obligation in the list of creditors submitted to the bankruptcy and exemption case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap 1-1, 2, Eul 3-1, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff omitted the debt of this case from the creditor list in the course of the application for immunity of this case, but it did not have been maliciously omitted, and therefore, the plaintiff's debt of this case against the defendant was also exempted from the immunity of this case. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the exemption of this case does not constitute the debt of this case since the plaintiff knew the existence of the debt of this case and omitted it from the creditor list in bad faith.

B. “Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) as to the party’s assertion means that the obligor is prior to immunity.

arrow