[1] Whether a debtor's submission of a false application document or a false statement constitutes grounds for denial of immunity under Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (negative)

[2] In a case where the issue is whether the debtor's statement that he/she had no property despite having a private taxi transport license by filing an application for exemption and the date of the bankruptcy procedure constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement about his/her property status to the court" under Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the case holding that it is difficult to view that the creditor made a false statement about his/her property status in the bankruptcy procedure on the ground that the creditor clearly stated that he/she would have been repaid through the sale of a transport license, under the circumstances where the creditor clearly stated that he/she would have obtained repayment of his/her claim through the sale of the transport license, and that the debtor stated that

[1] Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [2] Article 564 (1) 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1656 dated December 29, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 108)

Re-appellant

Other Party

Incheon District Court Order 2010Ra267 dated January 3, 2011

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “When an obligor submits a false list of creditors or any other application documents, or makes a false statement with respect to the status of the property before the court,” the provision applies only to cases where the obligor submits a false application document or makes a false statement with respect to the status of the property, the provision applies only to cases where the obligor submits a false application document or makes a false statement, and it shall not apply to cases where the obligor submits a false application document or makes a false statement (see Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1656, Dec. 29, 2008, etc.).

The court below held that the re-appellant's act constitutes "when an obligor makes a false statement about his/her property status to a court" under Article 564 subparagraph 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, on the ground that the re-appellant held a personal taxi transport license equivalent to KRW 70 million in market value (hereinafter "transport license of this case") and stated that he/she did not own property at all through the date of bankruptcy proceedings and the application for exemption of this case." Thus, the court below held that the re-appellant's act constitutes "when the obligor made a false statement

However, according to the records, in applying for bankruptcy against the re-appellant, the creditor sold the transport license of this case, which is the only property of the re-appellant, and entered in the bankruptcy application that the re-appellant filed a petition for bankruptcy against the debtor for the repayment of the claim from the proceeds of the sale. The re-appellant stated on the first day of the bankruptcy procedure that "if he operates a private taxi, but does not incur any income, no property owned by the re-appellant exists, and no property owned by the re-appellant exists," and the Re-Appellant stated in the written statement attached to the application for immunity that "after the termination of the bankruptcy," that the current occupation falls under "a personal taxi article," "no monthly income," and "the bankrupt falls under "a person who has not been reinstated after the bankruptcy is declared" under Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and that "the grounds for debt increase and insolvency" was loaned money from the financial right at the time of obtaining the personal taxi license of this case in 192, and that he operated

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, in this case where the creditor clearly stated that he would receive the payment of the claim through the sale of the transport license of this case, the purport that the re-appellant's property is recognized and stated to the effect that he did not have any property other than the personal taxi transport license is stated to the effect that he did not have any property other than the personal taxi transport license. Thus, in the bankruptcy procedure of this case, it is difficult to view that the re-appellant made a false statement about his property status in the bankruptcy procedure of this case, and it is evident that the re-appellant's statement does not constitute a case where the re-appellant made a false statement at the time of the application for exemption

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)