beta
Text
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 30, 2017, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff loaned KRW 267,50,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of KRW 5.9% per annum; (b) 25% per annum per annum per overdue interest rate (However, according to the amendment of the overdue interest rate provision under the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act, the agreed interest rate of KRW 3%); (c) monthly installments; (d) 4,420,630; and (e) 75 months per annum; and (d) the repayment period; (e) the Defendant delayed the repayment of principal and interest; and (e) the Defendant lost its interest as of December 20, 2019; and (e) the amount of the loan that was not repaid as of February 14, 2020 is KRW 130,78,049; and (e) interest and delayed
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 8.9% per annum, which is the interest rate per annum from February 15, 2020 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of KRW 151,879,432 and the principal amount of KRW 130,78,049.
2. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “a debtor granted immunity shall be exempted from all liability to any bankruptcy creditor except for dividends under bankruptcy proceedings.” Here, the term “Immunity” means a debtor himself/herself still exists, but cannot compel the performance of his/her obligation to the bankruptcy debtor. Thus, when a decision to grant immunity against the bankruptcy debtor becomes final and conclusive, the exempted claim shall lose the ability of the ordinary claim to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). We examine the following: Gwangju District Court Decision 2019Hau147, 2019Hau 1147, 2019, the defendant filed a petition for immunity and application for immunity with the Gwangju District Court Decision 1147, Jul. 13, 2020; and on July 28, 2020, the record clearly became final and conclusive.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful because there was no benefit of protection of rights due to the determination of the above decision to grant immunity.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.