logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단21175
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal, the Ulsan District Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant 42,713,024 won and 21,457,382 won, whichever is 29.9% per annum from October 5, 2013 to the date of full payment, and ordered the Defendant to pay the Defendant 29.9% interest per annum from October 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), which became final and conclusive on November 15, 2013, and the fact that the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on May 2, 2016, and that the immunity order became final and conclusive by the court below around 160 if the Plaintiff was 2016 U.S. District Court on August 19, 2016.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the claims on the payment order of this case are exempted from the above immunity decision and the payment order of this case loses its executive force, so compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be rejected.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's claim under the payment order of this case in bad faith in the list of creditors submitted to the court in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure. Thus, the claim under the payment order of this case constitutes non-exempt claim.

B. The phrase “claim that is 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 an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the obligor 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, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it is difficult to enter it in the list

arrow