beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Order No. 2010 tea10813 dated February 19, 2010.
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition that the defendant (the plaintiff's trade name was "E corporation" and changed to the current trade name on June 10, 2010) applied against the plaintiff for a payment order for the loan claim under the Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea10813. On February 19, 2010, the above court ordered the defendant to pay the payment order for the remaining loan amounting to KRW 17,878,249, and the remaining loan principal amounting to KRW 7,196,787 at a rate of 25% per annum from February 11, 2010 to the date of full payment, and the payment order (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") became final and conclusive at that time.
On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption under the Seoul Central District Court 2015, 2181, 2015Hadan2181, and received immunity from the above court on September 25, 2015. The instant claim was not stated in the creditor list.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Any property claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor as to the judgment on the cause of the claim, that is, the bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), even if the decision on immunity against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, unless it falls under
According to the above facts, the claim in this case is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the immunity decision against the plaintiff has been finalized and thus has lost its executive force, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case against the plaintiff cannot be permitted.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s argument is the Plaintiff’s bad faith in the aforementioned exemption case.