In a case where a debtor makes a false statement concerning the status of property of his relatives, etc., whether it constitutes a ground for refusing to grant immunity under Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (negative)

Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "when an obligor makes a false statement about his/her property to a court, the obligor shall not be granted immunity." "property status" refers to "property status of the obligor", and the debtor's property includes not only the property owned by the obligor in his/her name but also the property owned by him/her by lending another person's name. However, since property not corresponding thereto and owned by the obligor's relatives, etc. cannot be deemed as the debtor's property, it does not constitute grounds for refusing immunity under the above provision on the ground that the obligor made a false statement about the property status of his/her relatives, etc.

Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Re-appellant

Daegu District Court Order 2008Ra412 dated December 19, 2008

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 564(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “When an obligor has made a false statement about his/her financial status to the court, the obligor shall not be granted immunity.” In this context, “financial status of the obligor” refers to “property of the obligor,” and “property of the obligor shall include not only the obligor’s own name, but also the obligor’s name, and the obligor’s property shall include not only the property owned by the obligor, but also the property owned by him/her, but also the obligor’s relatives, etc. shall not be deemed the obligor’s property. Thus, the obligor’s property held by his/her relatives, etc. shall not be deemed to constitute grounds for non-permission

The court below acknowledged that the re-appellant's act constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement to the court about the financial status of the debtor," which is the ground for non-permission of discharge stipulated in Article 564 (1) 3 of the Act, without omitting the fact that the non-applicant's non-applicant's non-applicant's own (number number, land category and size omitted) and the house above ground (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The court below determined that the act of the re-appellant constitutes "when the debtor makes a false statement to the court about the financial status of the company".

According to the records, the Re-Appellant was bankrupted in November 200 due to 1961, and the real estate of this case was registered on the site of April 28, 1979 by the non-applicant except the Re-Appellant, and completed each registration of preservation of ownership on a detached house on November 9, 1990. The non-applicant's age at the time of initial acquisition of the real estate of this case was 18 years old, and there was no other evidence to view that the actual holder of the real estate of this case was the Re-Appellant.

In light of the above legal principles and records, since the real estate of this case cannot be deemed as the property of the re-appellant, it cannot be deemed as the ground for non-permission of exemption under Article 564 (1) 3 of the Act on the ground that the re-appellant made a false statement concerning the real estate of this case owned by the non-applicant. The judgment of the court below contrary to this is unlawful.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)