beta
Text
1. On January 27, 2010, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability for indemnity against the Defendant was discharged from liability.
2...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 27, 2010, the Defendant concluded a credit guarantee contract with the Plaintiff’s husband B with the guaranteed amount of KRW 10 million, Gyeongsan-si Branch of the Guarantee Bank, and from January 27, 2010 to January 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the credit guarantee obligation under B.
B. B failed to repay the loans to the Gyeongsan-si Branch of the Nonghyup Bank. Accordingly, the Plaintiff subrogated to the Gyeongsan-si Branch of the Nonghyup Bank amounting to KRW 10,180,79, and the amount of subrogated payment as of November 28, 2014 (= Principal KRW 8,392,098, KRW 5,828,924).
C. On September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Daegu District Court No. 2010Hadan6222, 2010Ma62222, and was granted immunity on July 14, 201, and such immunity became final and conclusive on July 29, 2011. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement in the obligee’s list during the bankruptcy and exemption procedure.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. “Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to claims that an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but not entered in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if he/she failed to enter it in
The reason why the claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if not so, the creditor omitted from the list of creditors.