beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. At the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court, the Plaintiff’s failure to enter the instant subrogation claim in the creditors’ list is due to the failure to know the existence of the said claim, and it does not constitute an omission in bad faith. Therefore, the Defendant’s subrogation claim should be exempted. 2) Although the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant subrogation claim, it was omitted from the creditors’ list, and thus, the Defendant’s claim constitutes non-exempt claim.
B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor 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 obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence
(1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the amount of subrogated payment of this case under the court 2003da697, Oct. 14, 2010 (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the payment of the amount of subrogated payment of this case under the court 2003Gada697, as seen above. In full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 2 and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff did not submit any written response even if he was served with the copy of the complaint of this case on Jan. 29, 2003.