beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's 17,00,000 won against the defendant and 20% per annum from November 6, 2005 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 20 million from the Defendant through D, the president of the news report office he/she had worked, from July 2002 to December 2002, 202, through which the Plaintiff repaid the amount of KRW 20 million from May 2003 to July 15, 2004, by means of remitting the amount of KRW 20 million from May 2003 to the passbook in the name of E and F or to the Defendant passbook.
B. On May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Daegu District Court Decision 2008Hadan3159 and 2008Ma3159 on April 10, 2009, and received the decision of exemption from liability on April 10, 2009. At that time, the Defendant was omitted in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity, the obligation to the defendant against the defendant was already fully repaid, and did not have been omitted in bad faith. The defendant asserts to the effect that, in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not enter the debt to the defendant in the creditor list in bad faith, while making application for immunity, it constitutes non-exempt claim.
B. (1) Determination (1) Article 566 subparagraph 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 the obligor fails to enter the same 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 constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the obligor
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 14, 201