logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.02.22 2017가단11643
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) was granted exemption from the Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Da804 (2016Hadan804) (hereinafter “instant exemption from immunity”); and (b) around that time, the instant exemption from immunity becomes final and conclusive as is; (c) at the time, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim (hereinafter “instant claim”); (d) did not omit the entry of the instant claim in bad faith, and thus, the effect of the instant exemption from immunity extends to the instant claim.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim had already been issued a credit information inquiry statement before filing a petition for bankruptcy with the Cheongju District Court. Moreover, on May 8, 2017, the Cheongju District Court issued a direct service of a document demanding repayment to the Defendant on February 20, 2017, prior to being declared bankrupt, prior to being declared bankrupt by the Cheongju District Court. As long as the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant claim at the time, this constitutes a non-exempt claim and thus, the effect of the immunity decision does not extend to the instant claim.

2. Determination

A. The term “claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, has not been entered in the list of creditors. Thus, if 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 above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is erroneous in the list of creditors.

arrow