beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,400,000 and KRW 25,400,00 among them, from May 6, 2002, and KRW 10,000,000.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff filed a loan claim against the defendant under Daegu District Court Decision 2007Da5065, Daegu District Court Decision 2007Da5065, Oct. 18, 2007 that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,400,000 won and 25,400,000 won among them, from May 6, 2002, from May 19, 2002 to September 20, 2007, and from September 20, 2007 to September 20, 2007, 5% per annum from the next day to September 20, 207, and from the next day to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case").
(2) On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the said loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) established by the instant judgment.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,400,000 and the amount of KRW 25,400,00 among the loans of this case, and the amount of KRW 10,000 from May 6, 2002 to September 20, 2007, the amount of KRW 5% per annum from May 19, 2002 to September 20, 2007, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. As to the defendant's argument
A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is granted immunity from the court, and thus, the defendant asserts that the loan claim of this case also has the effect of immunity.
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 by an obligor" referred to in subparagraph 7 of Article 566 means cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of a claim before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors.
If a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of such obligation, the same provision shall apply.