logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.12.14 2016가단9080
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's Changwon District Court Decision 2009Gau14262 decided Oct. 16, 2009 is based on the defendant's decision against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the case of loans against the Plaintiff rendered by the bankruptcy trustee of Changwon District Court 2009Gau14262 by the bankrupt Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the above court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay of KRW 6,971,136 and KRW 1,547,148 from October 16, 2009. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time after the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff by public notice.

(hereinafter “instant loan claim” and “instant judgment”). B.

On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) by the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2012,2669, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

C. As above, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while applying for immunity did not indicate the instant loan claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entrys at Gap's 1 to 4 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any property claim that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the debtor who has received immunity shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims." Thus, even if such claims are not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, a bankruptcy claim is exempted from its liability with respect to the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). According to the above facts recognized, the loans of this case shall be claims of this case:

arrow