logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.16 2017나76289
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 2007, Nonparty C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Da173915, and on December 5, 2007, the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 600,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 19, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment”). The judgment became final and conclusive on January 4, 2008.

B. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired the entire claim for the foregoing judgment amount from the above C, and C sent a notice of transfer of the claim for judgment amount to the Defendant on May 1, 2017. The Defendant was served around that time.

C. On the other hand, on November 4, 2015, the Defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan920, 2015Ma920, 2015Ma920, and on May 9, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not enter the claim to grant immunity in the creditor list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1 to 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) On the ground that the Plaintiff received the judgment amount against the Defendant from Nonparty C, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity, there was no intentional omission of the Plaintiff’s claim, i.e., the above judgment amount, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it had already been granted a decision on immunity. 2) On the contrary, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes non-exempt claims, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the judgment amount and did not enter it in the obligee’s list intentionally or in bad faith.

B. (1) Determination 1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”)

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" referred to in subparagraph 7 of Article 566.

arrow