logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나3964
대여금
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. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2008, the Plaintiff leased KRW 13,000,000 to the Defendant at interest rate of 40% per annum and on January 23, 2009.

(B) The Plaintiff’s credit (hereinafter “instant loan”).

The defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption to the Seoul Central District Court on January 25, 2010 (2009Hadan20179), respectively, and the decision of exemption was made on June 24, 201 (2009Da20179) and became final and conclusive around that time.

【Ground for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Regarding the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the instant loan, the Defendant received immunity around 2011, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. Where a decision to grant a discharge permission to the debtor is confirmed, the debtor is exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditor, and in such cases, the bankruptcy claim shall lose the ability and executory power of filing a lawsuit that has ordinary claims due to the extinction of his/her responsibility.

However, according to the above facts of recognition, this case's loan claims constitute bankruptcy claims because they were caused before the defendant was declared bankrupt, and thus, they lose the ability and executory power of filing lawsuits with ordinary claims upon confirmation of exemption decision against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is exempted from liability for the plaintiff's loan obligations according to the above exemption decision. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, and it is so revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow