beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 49,60,000 and the Defendants B from May 6, 2007 to March 28, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Defendant C’s main defense of safety
A. The Defendant C alleged that he was granted a decision of immunity after having been declared bankrupt (the purport of the Defendant C’s assertion is not clear, but the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful). As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, inasmuch as Defendant C knew of the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim and did not enter it in the list of creditors intentionally or in bad faith, the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes non-exempt claim.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, Defendant C applied for bankruptcy and exemption from liability as of August 22, 2007, 2007, 7201, 2007, and 7206, and was declared bankrupt by the above court on February 28, 2008, and was granted immunity from the above court on July 18, 2008, and the above immunity was confirmed at that time, and there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s claim was omitted in the list of creditors submitted by Defendant C at the time the above application was filed.
“Claims that are not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to claims that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision of immunity, but are not entered in the creditors’ list. Thus, 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 same Article even if the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation. However, if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if the debtor was negligent in failing to enter it in
The reason why the claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the scope of exemption.