(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나2048 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나2048

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. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is not obligated to pay the above borrowed money, since the defendant is legally exempted by the court's decision on February 28, 2003, while demanding the defendant to pay the borrowed money obligation on February 28, 2003.

B. 1 ex officio, the judgment was examined, and the defendant was due under the guarantee of C and D on February 28, 2003 and the same year.

8. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as of January 20, 200, and the Defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption from liability as of November 2007, the Gwangju District Court 2007Hadan9156, and 2007Ma9154. The above court determined the Plaintiff’s exemption from liability on January 13, 2009, and confirmed the above decision around that time. The fact that the Plaintiff did not separately enter the Plaintiff’s above loan claim against the Plaintiff in the creditors list at the time when the Plaintiff applied for exemption from liability as above (hereinafter “the claim of this case”) does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or that it can be acknowledged by the entire purport of each of the entries and the entire arguments of subparagraphs A and 2 (including the number of claims available).

2) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”)

(1) Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the same Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and the obligor fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Thus, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not aware of the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim

As such, the list of creditors shall not be entered.

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.10 2014가단151593

-제주지방법원 2018.04.03 2017가단3962

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단34602

-제주지방법원 2018.09.04 2018가단6005

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015가단68834