logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.09.22 2017가단105922
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from the Defendant around 2008, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on March 31, 2009, lent KRW 13,00,000 from the Defendant on March 31, 2009, and the end of April 2009, paid KRW 50,000 each month to the Defendant by the end of May 201, and paid interest at the end of February 5, 2009, a notarial deed of money loan (a notary public belonging to the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office shall pay KRW 13,00,000 in installments to the Defendant by the end of May 201, and the interest shall be paid at the end of February 5, 2009).

B. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”) by the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Do305, and the said decision became final and conclusive on April 12, 2016.

C. The instant debt was not included in the list of creditors of the instant decision to grant immunity.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s claim does not include the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of creditors of the decision on immunity of this case, the Plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was exempted from liability.

B. According to Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the term “claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” refers to a case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it 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, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it is difficult to enter it in the list of

arrow