Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 2, 2018, the Korea C&T Bank transferred the remainder claim KRW 59,127,014 (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) out of the loans granted to the Plaintiff to the Defendant on or around February 2, 2018, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transferring the claim thereafter.
B. On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Suwon District Court 2010dan20, and the rehabilitation procedure commenced, but the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on July 17, 2013.
On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”) on September 13, 2017 by filing an application for immunity with the Suwon District Court 2013Da8359, and the said decision became final and conclusive on September 29, 2017.
C. The Plaintiff entered the instant loan claim in the creditors’ list in the said individual rehabilitation case, but did not enter the instant loan claim in the creditors’ list in the said individual rehabilitation case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion argues that the effect of the immunity decision of this case extends to the loan claim of this case, since it did not intentionally omit the claims of this case, preparing the creditor list rapidly at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity.
B. “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the aforementioned provisions, but otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation.