beta
Text
1. The defendant's decision on the loan case of Seoul Southern District Court 201Gaso19594 (No. 199594) against the plaintiff is based.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant supplied alcoholic beverages to a restaurant operated by B, and the plaintiff guaranteed the price of the alcoholic beverages.
B. On January 13, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against B and the Plaintiff with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da199594 (hereinafter “instant obligation”), and received the judgment that the Plaintiff and B jointly and severally paid KRW 2,000,000 to the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 2012.
C. On the other hand, on June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and immunity as Seoul Central District Court 2015Da2222, 2015Hadan2222, and was granted immunity on May 29, 2015. On the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time, the Defendant, the creditor of the instant obligation, was missing.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was not aware of the existence of the debt of this case and did not enter the defendant in the creditor list at the time of the application for discharge, but omitted in bad faith. Thus, since the debt of this case was exempted, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case should be rejected.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the debt of this case, but did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors in bad faith. Thus, the defendant constitutes grounds for non-permission of exemption under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act
B. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before the decision to grant immunity, but is not entered in the list of creditors.
Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of the obligation, he did not know it.