beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) 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 the same in the creditor list. 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 said provision, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the creditor list by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the said provision, even if the obligor was unable to enter it in the creditor list.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). B.
Plaintiff
The summary of the argument is that the plaintiff was not directly served with the payment order of this case and did not know the existence of the payment obligation of restitution to the defendant or the obligation of return of unjust enrichment to the defendant at the time of the bankruptcy and exemption application of this case. Thus, this does not constitute “a claim which is not recorded in the list of creditors due to bad faith” as provided in the provision of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.
C. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 1-1-6, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2 as to the instant case, the instant payment order was lawfully served on July 5, 2012 on the part of the plaintiff's cohabitant, and the Incheon District Court 2017Kau3056 decided on August 31, 2017, where the plaintiff was legally served on the plaintiff, a certified copy of the decision on the case on the non-performance list, etc. was served on the above cohabitant mother as the case of the instant payment order, and the plaintiff entered into an insurance contract after being commissioned as the defendant's insurance solicitor.