The debtor

Interested Persons (Applicant)

The application filed by the interested person (applicant) for the cancellation of immunity is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The records of this case show the following facts.

A. The debtor filed an application for individual rehabilitation on January 9, 2007, 2007, 2007da4511. The debtor did not enter the applicant's loan claims against the debtor in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the application, and did not enter the debtor's loan claims against the other person in the list of creditors submitted around August 2007.

B. On September 12, 2007, this Court commenced individual rehabilitation procedures for the debtor, and approved the repayment plan (20% of the principal) on November 23, 2007.

C. The debtor performed repayment according to the repayment plan from around 2007 to 60 months, and was granted immunity on February 13, 2014.

2. Summary of the applicant’s assertion

The debtor filed an individual rehabilitation application with the court 2007 451 at the time of the application for individual rehabilitation, while the debt was KRW 107,908,446 at the time of the application for individual rehabilitation, while the third party had much more claims than the debt amounting to KRW 156,90,000,00 in total, which was concealed this fact, and intentionally omitted the applicant's loan claims in the creditor list, and omitted the insurance money in the debtor's list. Therefore, the debtor's exemption is improper, so the exemption should be revoked.

3. Determination

In full view of the records of this case and the results of the examination by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The debtor, even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay at around 2003, is a crime that was obtained from the applicant as a loan and acquired by deceit, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on June 13, 2006 as a crime of fraud, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. A debtor around January 2007, around the time of filing an application for individual rehabilitation of this case, he heard that a claim that was rendered by a certified judicial scrivener with the judgment of fraud falls under non-exempt claims and thus should be repaid separately, and did not enter in the list of creditors of individual rehabilitation.

C. The debtor stated in the 2008 Chuncheon District Court Decision 2008Kau303, the loan claim against the non-party, including KRW 40,000,000, and the loan claim against the non-party.

The above facts are revealed after compiling the records and the results of the examination in this case. In other words, the debtor's failure to enter the above loan claims against the debtor in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors is insufficient to evaluate that the debtor was exempted from the exemption by unlawful means on the sole basis of the fact that the debtor did not enter the above loan claims in the list of creditors. The debtor had each of the above loan claims against the non-exempt claims against the non-party et al. from 2001 to 2003, which occurred between the non-party et al., but it is stated that the debtor was not recorded in the list of creditors because the principal or interest of the above loan claims was not paid from 200 to the non-party et al., and the principal or interest was not paid from 203. However, the debtor's failure to enter the above loan claims in the list of creditors in the list of creditors. Considering the above facts, it is difficult to view that there is any ground for revocation of exemption under Article 569 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view that an applicant’s claim constitutes a non-exempt claim as seen earlier, and thus, can exercise the right based on the claim despite the decision of exemption against the debtor, and thus, there is a benefit to seek the revocation of exemption

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the motion for revocation of exemption of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Lee-hee