logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.14 2017가단15618
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's decision against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Southern District Court case No. 2005Gaso25173.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Busan District Court Decision 2005Gaso25173, Busan District Court Decision 2005Na25173 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the amount of acquisition.

B. On June 15, 2005, the above court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the non-party bank 16,204,847 won with interest of 20% per annum from June 9, 2005 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On March 7, 2012, the non-party bank was declared bankrupt by Busan District Court 2012Hahap1, and the defendant was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on February 8, 201 and became final and conclusive around September 14, 201 by filing an application for immunity for personal bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 2010Hadan10632, 2010 Ga10632. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff to the said court did not indicate the claims of the non-party bank based on the instant judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the course of filing an application for individual bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not recognize the debt owed to the non-party bank, and omitted the non-party bank in the creditor list, and thus, the defendant's debt to the defendant was also exempted from the above immunity decision, and ultimately, the compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case should be

In regard to this, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the obligation against the non-party bank at the time when the Plaintiff filed an individual bankruptcy and application for immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant is “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith,” as provided by Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”).

arrow