Appellant

Daegu District Court Order 2007 Dated August 13, 2008 (2007Hadan5227) 527 Dated August 13, 2008

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. Non-Appellant 2, who is the husband of the appellant, started the textile manufacturing business on March 2003, with the trade name “○○○”. The debt was accumulated from April 30, 2006 to April 30, 2006 when the business was suspended from 2003, and some of the above debt was loaned under the name of the appellant or jointly and severally guaranteed by the appellant.

B. Around July 2006, an auction was initiated in relation to the factory of the Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun (hereinafter omitted) and the Daegu-gu Office (hereinafter omitted) owned by the appellant. On November 2006, the appellant terminated the insurance contract and repaid KRW 30,000,000 to one of the creditors as refund for the cancellation of the insurance contract.

C. On April 18, 2007, when the appellant bears a total amount of KRW 207,410,000, the appellant filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the lower court. In this case, the appellant stated that the appellant did not have the experience of repayment only to some creditors since it was difficult to pay the debt due to the lack of economic circumstances.

D. On January 24, 2008, the court of original judgment, based on the application documents submitted by the appellant, sentenced the appellant to bankruptcy and decided to discontinue the bankruptcy at the same time, and subsequently, decided to refuse the discharge on the ground that the act of the appellant’s failure to state the above disposition by the appellant on August 13, 2008 constitutes a ground for non-permission of discharge under Articles 564(1)1 and 3, 650 subparag. 1, and 651 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

The appellant asserts that the above repayment is not a ground for non-permission of immunity or because he was unaware of whether it is subject to a statement, the appellant may not make it a ground for non-permission of immunity.

B. Determination

Considering the status of the appellant’s property and liability at the time of the above repayment, disposal property and its counterpart, and circumstances after disposal of the property, etc. as revealed in the above facts, an omission of repayment and statement of repayment by the appellant constitutes “when the appellant makes a false statement about his/her property status to the court” or “when he/she disposes of the property belonging to the bankrupt estate to the creditor disadvantageously,” or “when he/she makes a biased repayment to the creditor” under Article 564(1)1 and 3, Article 650 subparag. 1, and Article 651 subparag. 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, it is unreasonable to allow exemption at his/her discretion even if all the circumstances indicated in the record, including the reasons alleged by the appellant, are considered.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the court below's rejection of exemption from the appellant is just, and the appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)