beta
Text
1. On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s payment order issued by Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea 49560 dated March 12, 2015 against the Defendant was 154,218.
Reasons
1. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea49560, and the payment order was issued as of March 12, 2015 and served on April 15, 2015, and became final and conclusive on April 30, 2015.
On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Daejeon District Court (2016Hadan2441), and obtained a decision to grant immunity (2016Ma2432) from the above court, and around that time, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense is that the defendant's claim is based on the payment order, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it has no interest in lawsuit, but it cannot be accepted as it is merely an independent opinion.
B. The “claim that is not recorded in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as to the merits refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor 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 debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if
The reason why a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the creditor is deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, as well as the reason why the exemption is denied under Article 564 of the above Act.