beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s 3,00,000 won against the Defendant and interest thereon and damages for delay have been discharged.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) on May 24, 2002, extended a loan of KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff on November 24, 2002 at an interest rate of KRW 58% per annum on November 24, 2002.
After that, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank applied for payment order against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea69408 with respect to the instant loan claims, and the above payment order was served on October 5, 2007 on the Plaintiff’s domicile and became final and conclusive on October 20, 2007.
B. Meanwhile, around 2013, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and granted immunity on February 12, 2015 by the Cheongju District Court 2013Hadan91, 2013Ma91, and the application for immunity was finalized on February 27, 2015.
However, the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff while applying for immunity did not contain loan claims of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.
C. After that, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hahap139, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, since the loan claim of this case was a claim arising from the cause before the declaration of bankruptcy, the decision of immunity of this case becomes effective, and as long as the defendant contests this, he has the interest in confirmation.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not enter the loan claim of this case in the creditor list in bad faith, it constitutes non-exempt claim.
However, in light of the following circumstances, the payment order that the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank filed against the Plaintiff was served on October 5, 2007 and confirmed on October 20, 2007, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff becomes final and conclusive solely on the ground that the above payment order became final and conclusive in light of the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments, as seen earlier.