beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 6, 2002, the Plaintiff extended the period of time by receiving a marina loan of KRW 10 million from the Defendant on several occasions. On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed a loan of KRW 5,300,000,000 as a long-term installment loan with the interest remaining on November 4, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant substitute loan”). B.
The Plaintiff was granted immunity on October 31, 2016 in Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2016Hadan4634, 2016Mo4634, and the decision became final and conclusive on November 16, 2016.
The defendant is not stated in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff to the above court.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was granted immunity and confirmed, and that at the time of application for immunity, the Plaintiff did not intentionally omit the Defendant in the list of creditors, and that this case’s loan loan claim was also exempted.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment loan of this case constitutes “a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, it should be excluded from the scope of exemption.
B. The phrase “claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, failed to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, 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, it is not recorded