beta
Text
1. The defendant's judgment of Jeonju District Court of the Seoul District Court of the Republic of Korea is the defendant's judgment of the Seoul District Court of March 5, 2004 and the defendant's judgment of the court below is 63245.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 25, 2003, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff received compensation from the perpetrator of the vehicle damage (Seoul District Court 2003Gau 63245, Gasan District Court 2003). The Plaintiff’s location at the time was not confirmed, and the lawsuit was proceeded by public notice. On March 5, 2004, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 2.1 million and the amount thereof from November 1, 2002 to March 2, 2004; the amount of money calculated at each rate of KRW 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”
B. On June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy immunity and received immunity in the Jeonju District Court 2006Da1057, 2006Hadan1020 on November 14, 2007, and the above decision became final and conclusive on December 6, 2007. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim according to the above decision in the list of creditors at the time of the above application.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Bankruptcy claims (property claims arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor) are confirmed when the decision to grant immunity to the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, and are not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity.
Even if the obligor does not fall under any of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the obligor is exempt from liability with the effect of immunity pursuant to Article 565 of the same Act, and is naturally liable and loses the ability and executory power of filing a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In addition, “claim that is not entered in the obligee’s list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is known to the obligee before immunity is granted.