Seoul Mutual Savings Bank

The debtor

Korea Exchange Bank and one other

Suwon District Court Order 2013 Taz. 2399 dated July 16, 2013

1. The decision of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The request for the seizure and collection order of the instant case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

A. On June 26, 2013, based on the executory order of a loan payment order issued in Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea69109, the creditor filed a request against the debtor for the seizure and collection order of the claim against the debtor as to the deposit claim that the debtor owns against the third debtor, with the amount claimed as KRW 21,076,931, which is KRW 201,000,000, Suwon District Court 2013.

B. On June 27, 2013, the judicial assistant officer of the court of first instance issued the instant order of seizure and collection, and on this occasion, the court of first instance rendered a decision of the court of first instance authorizing the said disposition by the judicial assistant officer on July 16, 2013, where the debtor’s immediate appeal was defective.

C. Meanwhile, the debtor declared bankrupt and applied for immunity in accordance with the court 2006Hadan1235 and 2006 Ma12827, which was declared bankrupt on June 26, 2007, and was granted immunity on August 22, 2007 by omitting the instant enforcement claim in the creditor list, and the above immunity immunity became final and conclusive on September 7, 2007.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Since the obligor did not intentionally omit the enforcement claim of this case at the time when immunity is granted by the obligee list, the above immunity decision against the obligor is limited to the enforcement claim of this case. Thus, the seizure and collection order of this case based on the enforcement claim of this case should be revoked.

3. Determination

A. “Claims that are 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 to a bankruptcy creditor prior to immunity, is not entered in the list of creditors. Thus, if an 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 provisions of the same Act. However, if an obligor was negligent in not aware of the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provisions of the same Act even if he/she did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence. The grounds for excluding a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors, if there is a creditor not entered in the list of creditors, the obligee would be deprived of the opportunity to raise an objection to the application for immunity within the scope of immunity procedure, and accordingly, the obligor should be determined by taking into account the objective verification of the grounds for non-permission of immunity under Article 564 of the same Act, and the obligor’s intent to protect the obligor’s’s in bad faith and the aforementioned.

B. In the instant case, in light of ① the time when a creditor’s claim for enforcement against the debtor was created (as of May 2002) and the amount of principal (as of May 3, 2000), it is difficult to deem that the debtor was aware of the existence of the enforcement claim at the time of the above discharge, in full view of the following: (a) there is no evidence suggesting that the debtor intentionally omitted the enforcement claim in the instant case in the discharge case; and (b) there is no evidence suggesting that the creditor had urged payment to the debtor; and (c) the enforcement title

C. Therefore, since the enforcement claim of this case cannot be deemed as non-exempt claim, the debtor's obligation based thereon shall be exempted by the above immunity decision.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance is revoked, and the request for the seizure and collection order of the instant case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)