beta
Text
1. On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiff’s liability for indemnity due to the subrogation against the Defendant was discharged.
2...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant, setting the credit guarantee principal of KRW 3.4 million and the credit guarantee term on June 10, 2015, in obtaining a loan of KRW 4 million from the Korea Forest Agricultural Cooperative located in the Korea Forest Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Korea Forest Agricultural Cooperative”).
B. The Plaintiff failed to repay the above loans, and the Defendant subrogated for KRW 3,521,350 to the Korea Forest Agricultural Cooperatives on March 24, 2011, and on September 1, 2014, the sum of the balance of the amount of subrogation and the amount of damages as of September 1, 201, reaches KRW 5,130,682.
C. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Hadan118, 2014Ma120, and 2014Ma1120, and was granted a decision of immunity on July 25, 2014. The decision of immunity became final and conclusive on August 9, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement in the list of creditors during the bankruptcy and exemption procedure.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy (hereinafter “the Act”) refers to a claim that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but has not been entered in the creditor list. Thus, if the debtor 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 as prescribed by the above Act. However, if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim as prescribed by the above Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act.
The reason why the claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the scope of immunity.