beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s Jeonju District Court Decision 2006Kadan32004 (No. 177,625,967) and its amount of indemnity based on the judgment of Jeonju District Court (No. 3204).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In the lawsuit of claim for indemnity filed against B, C, and the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Gadan32004), the Defendant rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff et al. jointly and severally paid KRW 177,625,967 and interest and delay damages thereon to the Defendant, and the judgment became final and conclusive.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”) b.
The Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and immunity with the Jeonju District Court 2007 4503, 2007Hadan4503, and omitted the entry of the instant claim in the list of creditors at the time of the said application.
The above court declared the plaintiff bankrupt and made a decision to grant immunity on July 2, 2009, and the above decision became final and conclusive as it is.
[Grounds for Recognition: Entry in Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant claim was exempted from immunity due to the above immunity, since it did not recognize the existence of the instant claim in the course of making individual bankruptcy and application for immunity.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the claim in this case constitutes "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and therefore, the claim in this case should be excluded from the scope of exemption.
B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it 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-
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). C.
See Gap evidence 3 and 4.