logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.28 2019나7098
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion by the parties infringed the plaintiff's trademark right and the defendant's representative "A shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000,000 won and damages for delay from February 8, 2014," which became final and conclusive in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap503139. The defendant, the representative of which is the defendant, is jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is also liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff 50,00,000 won and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the liability for the above obligation was exempted by the decision of exemption.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 3 (including additional numbers), the Defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption on October 27, 2014 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan947, 2014Ma947, and 2014Ma947, and the said decision of exemption was rendered on January 30, 2015, and the said decision of exemption became final and conclusive on February 18, 2015, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim was not entered in the list of creditors in the above case of bankruptcy and application for exemption.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act means cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and the obligor is omitted in the list of creditors.

Therefore, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if he/she did not enter it in the

The reason why the claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors is not entered in the list of creditors.

arrow