beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's part of the claim against the defendant B is dismissed.
2. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant C’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount.
Reasons
1. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a loan certificate (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that “the Defendant, from the Plaintiff, borrowed KRW 30 million on August 30, 201 to the present date, shall be deemed as not having been repaid, and shall be paid in installments each month from April 21, 201 to June 21, 2012.”
【Defendant B’s ground for recognition】 The purport of entry of evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to Defendant C: Confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and the damages for delay.
3. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense of exemption from liability
A. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B was granted immunity, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B had an obligation against the Plaintiff, despite being aware of the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff, did not enter it in the list of creditors, and thus, she re-claimed that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes non-
B. Where a decision to grant immunity to a debtor is confirmed, the debtor is exempted from all of his/her obligations to any bankruptcy creditor, and in such a case, the bankruptcy claim shall lose the ability and executory power of filing a lawsuit that has ordinary claims as natural obligations.
Meanwhile, “Claims not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter the same in the creditors’ list. Therefore, the debtor’s existence of an obligation is true.