Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 of the premiseed facts Gap, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,923,784 won and 39% interest per annum from July 18, 2013 to the date of complete payment as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case.
The facts of the judgment below, which became final and conclusive at that time, and the fact that the plaintiff was declared bankrupt on November 23, 2017 by the Changwon District Court 2017Hadan1880 on December 4, 2017 and was declared bankrupt on December 4, 2017. On January 11, 2018, the decision became final and conclusive upon being granted immunity by the Changwon District Court 2017Hawon District Court 1871.
2. The assertion;
(a) The debtor who has been exempted from liability under Article 566 of the Plaintiff’s Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall be exempted from all liabilities to the bankruptcy creditor, except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedures.
Accordingly, the compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be allowed as the claim of this case loses its executive force.
B. Since the Plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the creditors' list in bad faith, it is not exempt from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the above Act.
3. Determination
A. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it is prescribed by the same Act.