logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.18 2018가단208726
대여금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150,000,00 to Nonparty C by setting the maturity of KRW 36% per annum on March 3, 2010, and at the same time, the Defendant affixed the payment note on the above loan to Nonparty C as a guarantor.

On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff established the right to collateral security, which was owned by the Defendant, with respect to No. 1, 225,000,000 of the maximum debt amount, as well as the 225,000,000 won, and the debtor C and the mortgagee, as the Plaintiff. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was prepared with a promissory notes of KRW 225,00,000 from C and the Defendant, but the said hospital’s building was sold on October 30, 201, and the said loan was not repaid.

B. On the other hand, around October 16, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy or exemption with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court and the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016: (a) exempted from immunity; and (b) declared bankrupt on October 16, 2017, the decision became final and conclusive around that time.

The plaintiff was not stated in the list of creditors submitted by the defendant to the above court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. “Claims not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, if the obligor 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 obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, he did not enter it in the list of creditors

arrow