beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da35635 Decided August 12, 2010.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On August 12, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gapo35635 (C) filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff and C, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 17,491,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 12, 2010 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant damages”). The said judgment was served on the Plaintiff by public notice and became final and conclusive on October 9, 2010.
The Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hadan2782, 2013Ma2782, and 2013Ma2782, and was granted immunity on September 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The instant immunity became final and conclusive on October 22, 2013, and the list of creditors prepared at that time omitted the entry of the instant claim.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, claims arising before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor which have the effect of a decision on the cause of a claim as a whole of the pleadings, i.e., claims on property arising from the bankruptcy before the declaration of bankruptcy, even if a decision on immunity against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, the claims are not entered in the list of creditors, but are exempt from the effect of immunity unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's claim of this case against the plaintiff is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the bankruptcy is declared, and its liability is exempted as the immunity decision of this case against the plaintiff becomes final and conclusive, and barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff cannot be permitted.
The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion is not stated in the creditor list with knowledge of the existence of the claim of this case.