(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.07 2016가단3935

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.07 2016가단3935

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 18,60,000 and 5% per annum from February 17, 2016 to July 7, 2016.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendants on July 4, 2003, with the due date set on October 4, 2003, is either a dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged by the statement in Gap evidence No. 1.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 25,000,000,000 (=30,000,000--25,000,000) excluding the remainder of KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff who was repaid by the Defendants on April 30, 2013, and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was exempted from liability for the Plaintiff’s instant loan claims in accordance with the bankruptcy and exemption decision by the court.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of this Court, Defendant B applied for each bankruptcy and immunity under the court No. 5858, 2007Hadan587, 5849, Defendant C applied for exemption from immunity on December 10, 2008, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the instant loan claim were not entered in the list of creditors.

However, “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor was negligent in

2.2

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014나4809

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.28 2018가단5169917

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.01 2018가단5549

-창원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나55286

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015가단68834