(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017가단23590

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017가단23590

면책확인의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant filed a suit against the Plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement with Daejeon District Court 2013 Ghana 116619, and the said court rendered a recommendation of performance that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 3,412,00 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and bankruptcy, and on April 29, 2016, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to grant immunity (the Daejeon District Court 2015, 3246, hereinafter “instant decision”) to the Plaintiff on April 29, 2016, and the said decision became final and conclusive on May 14, 2016.

C. However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff while applying for bankruptcy and exemption was omitted from the judgment debt of the above paragraph (a) (hereinafter “instant debt”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the exemption of this case was granted as above, and even though the debt of this case is not indicated in the list of creditors, the Plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith, and thus, the debt of this case was exempted.

B. Determination 1 Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to a case where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, 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 aforementioned legal provision, but 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 constitutes a non-exempt claim under the said legal provision.

The reason is that the claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the exemption.

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.07.21 2017가단1655

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.08.30 2017가단1595

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단185091

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.15 2017가단20658

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나5949