beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant applied for a payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea32842, hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff, and the payment order was finalized on March 20, 2015.
B. On June 4, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) filed bankruptcy and application for immunity (Tgu District Court 2017: 2987; 2017Hadan 2987) on June 4, 2017; (b) obtained immunity on March 29, 2018; (c) the decision became final and conclusive on April 13, 2018; and (d) the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the bankruptcy and immunity procedures is not indicated as a claim against the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is not intentionally indicated in the list of creditors at the time of the plaintiff's above bankruptcy and exemption. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant should be exempted, and compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.
B. “Claims that are not recorded in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy 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, failed to enter it 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 provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation by negligence, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act
The reason why the claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the scope of immunity.