beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Korea Credit Information Company is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on May 15, 2017 and was granted immunity on November 6, 2017 by filing an application for immunity for personal bankruptcy and immunity (Seoul Rehabilitation Court No. 2017Hadan1213, 2017Ma1213, 2017).
The Plaintiff was liable for the amount of KRW 4,148,290 for E.T. 4,148,290 for E.T., and for E.T. 383,470 for E.T., however, in the bankruptcy exemption case, the Plaintiff’s list submitted by the Plaintiff was omitted.
Meanwhile, on April 12, 2018, the Defendant Korea Credit Information Company requested the collection of the above product-price claim from Egypt, and sent to the Plaintiff a letter demanding the repayment of the obligation.
2. Even if each of the obligations stated in the claims to the Defendants was omitted in the list of creditors of the Plaintiff’s claim to grant immunity, each of the above obligations is also subject to exemption from immunity according to the instant decision of immunity.
However, since the defendants are disputing the effect of immunity, it is sought to confirm the immunity.
The plaintiff did not know the existence of each of the above obligations and did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith.
3. 1) The Plaintiff seeks confirmation of exemption from liability against the Defendant Korea-U.S. Credit Information Company, but the said Defendant merely requested debt collection from EFT, a creditor, cannot be the other party to the claim for confirmation of exemption. This part of the lawsuit is unlawful by misunderstanding the Defendant by designating the Defendant. 2) The “claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where, despite being aware of the existence of a debt against the bankruptcy creditor before the immunity is granted, the obligor fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Thus, if the debtor was unaware of the existence of a debt, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the debt.