logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단129279
청구이의의 소
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 defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gapo2680847, and the above court "the defendant (referring to the plaintiff of this case) paid 10,026,973 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) and 10,026,41 won per annum from June 4, 2008 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date." The execution recommendation decision of this case was finalized on December 27, 2008.

B. On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge with Suwon District Court 2008Hadan1257 and 2008Ma1256 (Immunity). On November 5, 2008, the above court rendered a ruling to discontinue the bankruptcy of the Plaintiff at the same time with the declaration of bankruptcy on November 5, 2008, and thereafter, rendered a ruling to grant exemption on January 9, 2009. The decision to grant exemption became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month.

C. In applying for bankruptcy and exemption as above, the Plaintiff submitted the creditors list to the bankruptcy court, and the list omitted the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s decision on the instant performance recommendation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. When applying for bankruptcy and exemption of the Plaintiff, the Korea Credit Rating Information Co., Ltd. and the Credit Information Federation were convened through the creditor list to submit the creditor list, and all of the confirmed creditors were entered in the creditor list. At the time of submitting the creditor list, it was omitted because they were unaware of the Defendant’s claim based on the decision of performance recommendation of this case, and it was in bad faith known to the creditor list.

arrow