logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.02.08 2016가단22035
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant around 1998.

B. On January 16, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy with Suwon District Court 2006Hadan3147 and was declared bankrupt by the above court. On March 19, 2007, the Plaintiff was granted immunity by the above court 2006Ha3641.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not report the above loan obligations to the Defendant in the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, and as a result, the Defendant’s above claims were not included in the list of creditors.

On June 27, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the above loan as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2007Gaso81876, and the above court concluded the pleading on December 12, 2007 and rendered a favorable judgment on December 26, 2007, and the said judgment (hereinafter “prior judgment”) became final and conclusive.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, and 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff did not appear at the time of filing an application for the above individual bankruptcy and exemption, and did not know of whether the Plaintiff was liable to the Defendant due to the lack of demand from the Defendant, adjacent to the date of application, and thus, omitted the Defendant in the above bankruptcy and exemption case from the list of creditors. As such, the above obligation against the Defendant is deemed to have been discharged according to the above immunity decision, and the scope of liability is not subject to practical adjudication as to the scope of liability due to the Plaintiff’s failure to assert the above immunity at the time of examination of the above preceding judgment. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based

B. (1) Determination (1) Since res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects all means of attack and defense which the parties have asserted or could have asserted in a lawsuit between the same parties prior to the closing of argument, Supreme Court Decision 27 October 27, 1992.

arrow