beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The defendant A, B, and C are jointly and severally liable for 179,293,050 won and 175,54,116 won among them.
Reasons
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5, and each judgment rendered on deemed confessions (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act), Defendant 5 and the designated parties asserted that they were determined to approve inheritances against the networkF, but they could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because they did not actually have inherited property.
However, since the plaintiff has already filed the claim of this case on the premise that the above decision of qualified acceptance was made, the argument that there is no property inherited is nothing more than an independent argument that has no legal meaning that can prevent the claim of this case.
Therefore, it is deemed that the Defendants did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case.
3. The defendant's decision against the defendant 4 omitted the debt of this case at the time of bankruptcy and immunity in 2007, which is merely due to the number of times, and thus, the defendant asserts that the debt of this case was exempted.
Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" as one of non-exempt claims. In this case, "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and where the obligor 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 above provisions of the Act. In such cases, the obligor's bad faith in relation to the omission of the claim does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above Act even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, and it is determined after considering
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 14, 201