beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Reasons
1. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit
A. On August 11, 2009 and August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 35.6 billion to D Co., Ltd. on three occasions, and if the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties E, F, and G jointly and severally guaranteed it, the Plaintiff seek partial payment of the remaining principal and interest on the loan against the said Defendant, etc.
B. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that an obligor who has been exempted is exempted from all liability for all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor, except for dividends under the bankruptcy procedure. Here, the term “Immunity” means a debtor who continues to exist in his/her own debt but is unable to enforce performance to the bankruptcy debtor. As such, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankruptcy debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been exempted from liability should lose the ability to file a lawsuit with ordinary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Haso-Ma512, 2017, 514, 2017, 17, 2017, 2017). However, the Defendant (Appointed Party) is deemed to have lost the ability to file a lawsuit with the competent court or to file a decision to grant immunity under the overall purport of the court’s ruling.
Therefore, even if Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed E, F, and G are recognized as joint and several surety obligations of the above loan obligations against the Plaintiff, the liability of the above Defendant, etc. is exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Thus, the Plaintiff lost the ability to file a lawsuit against the Defendant (Appointed Party), E, F, and G to seek payment of the above loan obligations.
In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case against the above defendant is unlawful.
2. Conclusion.