logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.16 2014나2026772
투자금등 반환
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

Reasons

According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure, and thus, a claim on property arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor, namely, a bankruptcy claim, becomes final and conclusive when a decision to grant immunity against a debtor becomes final and conclusive, shall lose the ability to institute a lawsuit and executory power that has ordinary claims by extinguishing his/her natural obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3122, Jul. 24, 2001). In full view of the entries and arguments in Articles 5 and 6 (including a provisional number) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity with the court on July 12, 2012 (Seoul District Court Decision 201Du5301, Jul. 12, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da5308, Jan. 22, 2015).

Meanwhile, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the investment deposit and the claim for the fraternity that the Plaintiff claimed in the instant case occurred around 2010, which was prior to the declaration of bankruptcy.

Therefore, the Defendant’s liability for the above claim by the Plaintiff became final and conclusive upon the above decision to grant immunity, and thereby, the above claim by the Plaintiff was lost the power and executory power of filing a lawsuit with ordinary claims.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting the rights, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. It is decided as per Disposition by applying the latter part of Articles 105, 98, and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation

arrow