beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s damages claim against the Plaintiff against the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Kadan38677 Decided June 29, 2010.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 29, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced against the Plaintiff on June 29, 2010 due to the Liveman’s 2008 Liveman’s incident, that “The Defendant jointly and severally with C to the Plaintiff KRW 38,974,441 and its interest shall be paid 5% per annum from November 1, 2008 to September 23, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive.
B. Around November 2011, D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as a crime of fraud. Around November 201, D paid the said money after oral settlement of the Plaintiff’s debt amount of KRW 39 million against the Defendant. A criminal complaint was withdrawn by the Defendant.
C. On September 27, 2013, the Defendant was granted immunity for approximately KRW 1.5 billion against 11 creditors E- card, etc. in Seoul Rehabilitation Court case No. 2013, 1073.
【Fact that does not have any dispute】
2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's compulsory execution should be denied upon receiving a decision of immunity even if the plaintiff settled and agreed on the debt with the defendant with respect to the above final judgment.
In this regard, the defendant first received only KRW 10 million and said that the remaining money will be repaid by the next plaintiff. Since the plaintiff omitted his claim in the process of immunity in bad faith from the bond list, the plaintiff's assertion is unfair.
3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the oral argument in the fact of recognition as above, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay 10 million won to the defendant in the investigation procedure around 201, prior to the decision to grant the above immunity, and the defendant revoked the criminal complaint, and there is room to deem that the relationship with the defendant was terminated. While the plaintiff has already been owed to the 11 claims agency at the time when the decision to grant the immunity was made, it does not seem that the defendant's claim is omitted in bad faith.