logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.08.11 2016가단211777
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or show the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers). A.

On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff signed a credit guarantee agreement (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”) with the Defendant with the Dongdaemun-gu Branch of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “creditor Bank”) as a creditor on February 23, 2010, and jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation under the said credit guarantee agreement.

B. Around December 6, 2010, when B delays the repayment of the principal and interest of loan to creditor banks, the Defendant notified the occurrence of a credit guarantee accident under the title of “B” to the address specified in the Plaintiff’s Credit Guarantee Agreement (as well as the address indicated in the resident registration).

C. On March 9, 2011, the Defendant repaid the obligee bank the guaranteed debt of KRW 15,239,518 in accordance with the instant credit guarantee agreement, and notified the Defendant of the fact of subrogation and the repayment of the subrogated obligation on the same day.

B on April 19, 2013, Incheon District Court Decision 2013Hadan2313, 2013 Ma2310, filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity. On November 28, 2013, the court was granted immunity including the debt to the defendant.

E. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and immunity”) with the Incheon District Court 2014,5700 (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”), and filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and exemption”). On July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff received the said court’s decision of exemption, and did not enter the Defendant in the list of creditors.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the effect of exemption extends to the defendant's claim, since the plaintiff did not know the defendant's claim at the time of filing a petition for bankruptcy and exemption.

Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).

arrow