본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나12030

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.


1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff by filing an appeal, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate). 2. Judgment on the plaintiff'

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s initiative, lent KRW 130 million to Nonparty D (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant affixed a seal on the loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) written by D with money borrowed from the Plaintiff, thereby hindering the Defendant as a joint guarantor.

As such, the defendant knew that there is a joint and several liability for the loan of this case against the plaintiff, and received immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act by intentionally omitting it in the list of creditors. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant constitutes non-exempt claim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that there is no benefit in protecting the rights.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Defendant affixed an obstacle to the loan certificate of this case as a joint and several surety in light of the following facts and the overall purport of each party’s personal examination results and arguments against the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the trial, as well as the statement in Gap’s Nos. 4, 8, 13, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, G’s testimony in the trial, and each party’s personal examination results in the trial.

The loan claim in this case does not appear to have been omitted in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of the joint and several surety obligation for the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the payment of the loan claim of this case where the ability to file a lawsuit has been lost due to the confirmation of exemption decision is illegal.