logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.10 2016가단9405
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and application for immunity, which was declared bankrupt on October 27, 201, and received the decision of bankruptcy and the decision of granting immunity on January 11, 2012. In that process, the Plaintiff did not recognize the Defendant’s claim recognized in the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit and omitted entry in the list of bankruptcy creditors, and thus, the said claim also has the effect of immunity.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the previous suit of this case against the defendant should be denied.

2. According to Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act, in order for an obligor to raise an objection against a claim finalized by a judgment, a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim filed in the court of first instance shall be filed, and pursuant to Article 44(2) of the same Act, the ground for objection under paragraph (1) shall

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff filed an application for permission of exemption and bankruptcy with Suwon District Court 2010Hadan9118, 2010Ma9118, Oct. 27, 2011 and received the decision of permission of exemption on Jan. 11, 2012, and the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for a loan claim with Suwon District Court 2012Gabu19323, which was conducted by public notice, and the argument was concluded on August 23, 2012 and the judgment of the previous lawsuit was rendered on the same day. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff received the decision of permission of exemption based on the circumstance before the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit of this case, which was the date of closing of argument in the previous lawsuit of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above judgment of permission of exemption was sought by public notice before the closing of argument of this case without any further reason.

arrow