logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.05 2018가단4802
면책확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 77 million, interest thereon, and delay damages.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2005, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the borrowed amount of KRW 77 million at the time the former wife borrowed from the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court No. 2015Hadan3345, 2015Ka3349, but did not enter the said claims in the list of creditors.

After being declared bankrupt, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on March 7, 2016, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on March 22, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As above, it can be recognized that immunity has become final and conclusive. Accordingly, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s liability for the above obligation against the Defendant is exempted.

B. As to this, the Defendant did not enter the above claims in bad faith in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity, the Defendant asserts that the above claims constitute “claims not entered in the creditor registry in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus excluded from the scope of immunity.

The term “claim which is not entered in the creditor registry in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor knows the existence of a claim before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the creditor registry. Thus, regardless of whether there was negligence in failing to enter in the creditor registry, if the obligor was unaware of the existence of a claim, this does not constitute the case.

According to the statement in this case, the health stand and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff established a lease on a deposit basis with the Defendant as to the three-story 219 square meters on December 14, 2005, among the three-story buildings located in the Plaintiff, which are owned by the Defendant on December 14, 2005, with the deposit money of KRW 170 million for the third-story 219 square meters on the part of the Defendant’s loan claims and the Plaintiff’s lease on a deposit basis.

arrow