beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 54 million won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 1, 2008 to June 2, 2016 and from the next day.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the defendant's main defense
A. The parties' assertion that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed since the defendant received a decision to grant immunity after being declared bankrupt, and the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and that since the defendant knew the existence of the claim of this case and did not enter it in the list of creditors intentionally or in bad faith, the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claims.
B. In full view of the respective statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant was declared bankrupt on December 27, 2007 by the Daegu District Court No. 2007Hadan44111 on May 22, 2008, and the decision was made on immunity by the Daegu District Court No. 2007Ma411 on May 22, 2008. The fact that the decision became final and conclusive on June 8, 2008, the plaintiff's claim in this case was not entered in the creditor's list.
“Claims that are not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to claims that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision of immunity, but are not entered in the creditors’ list. Thus, when 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 same Article even if the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation. However, if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Article even if the debtor was negligent in failing to enter it in
If a claim not entered in the list of creditors does not do so, the creditor omitted in the list of creditors shall raise an objection to the application for immunity within the scope of the procedure of immunity.