beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant of KRW 338,940 on the mobile phone use fee under the mobile communications contract dated September 9, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of mobile communications services with the Defendant and used the mobile phone (B). The mobile phone was terminated ex officio on June 23, 2014 due to the unpaid fees, and the unpaid fees are KRW 338,940 in total.
B. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Hadan1625, 2014Ma1626, and 1626. On August 21, 2014, the said court was declared bankrupt and granted immunity, and the said immunity exemption became final and conclusive on September 5, 2014.
C. However, the Plaintiff did not state the Defendant’s claim under the above mobile communications service contract on the list of creditors submitted while making the above application for immunity.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “A debtor granted immunity shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except for the distribution pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure.” Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s obligation to use mobile phones to the Defendant according to the instant exemption decision was exempted.
B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant was omitted in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure list in bad faith.
“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to claims that a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but are not entered in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, the existence of an obligation does not constitute non-exempt claims under the above provisions, but otherwise, the debtor does not constitute a non-exempt claim.