205doz. 130 (2005Haak782) Exemptions

door-○ (4403**** 1********))

Address and permanent domicile, Seo-gu, Daejeon District*** -*

November 16, 2006

The bankrupt shall be exempted from liability.

1. Whether grounds for refusing to grant immunity exist;

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

(1) The bankrupt, from March 10, 1973 to March 10, 2003, was sealed as a local public official of Chungcheongnam-do for 32 years from March 10, 1973, and it was not sufficient to support the old parents, 3 children, and wife by the public official’s salary alone, and began to move to the shares investment from around 192.

(2) However, the bankrupt began to consider losses from the above stock investment, and began gradually from the speculative stock transaction in order to attract losses, and in particular, during the period from March 2, 2001 to September 30, 2004, the bankrupt has repeatedly conducted the purchase and sale of stocks at the intervals of 1-3 days and had engaged in the speculative stock transaction. The bankrupt has invested more than KRW 100 million in the stock investment as of 2003, but it has been 43 million in the annual salary as of 2003, but has been invested in the stock investment during the same year, and most of these amounts have been raised by bank loans and credit card cash services.

(3) The amount of loss caused by such speculative stock transactions was continuously accumulated, and the bankrupt continued to engage in a bank loan, credit card cash service, and speculative stock transaction, resulting in a continuous speculative stock transaction, and it was to lend money to his relatives and other people to meet the loss.

(4) The bankrupt shall make a voluntary retirement by making it difficult for the bankrupt to bear interest on the above-mentioned liability, and by making the retirement age in 203 before one year, and by making a retirement allowance of 235, 659, 810 won

The debt redemption has been used for debt redemption, but the debt amounting to KRW 180,000 has to remain even after the debt disposal as above.

(5) The bankrupt was indicted to the effect that, in the course of lending money to other persons as above, “any damage incurred in the course of lending money to other persons.” On June 28, 2006, the bankrupt was detained by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months at the Daejeon District Court, which was sentenced on June 28, 2006, and the above judgment became final and conclusive by the same court on November 10, 2006, and is still serving a prison term until now.

B. According to the above facts, the bankrupt shall be deemed to bear excessive debts by borrowing beyond his/her ability in light of the property status or the level of revenue, etc., and such acts constitute grounds for refusing to grant immunity under Articles 346 subparag. 1 and 367 subparag. 1 of the former Bankruptcy Act.

2. Whether to grant permission on a discretionary basis;

Article 346 of the former Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Apr. 1, 2006) shall be interpreted. Even in cases where there are grounds for refusing to grant immunity under each subparagraph of the same Article, the court may grant immunity if it is deemed reasonable in light of the background that caused the bankruptcy and other circumstances. In addition, in order to determine such discretionary exemption, it shall be possible to grant a so-called partial exemption that only part of the amount of liability is exempted from liability exceptionally taking into account all the circumstances such as the seriousness of the grounds for non-permission and the debtor's economic conditions. However, considering the fact that the purpose of the personal bankruptcy system is to promote the debtor's economic rehabilitation, it is possible for the debtor to continuously generate certain income and thus, it is reasonable to deem partial exemption from liability is permitted only if there is a vindication as to the failure due to the remaining debt (i.e., Supreme Court Order 2006Ma2660, Sep. 26, 2006).

In this case, it is true that the bankrupt has the grounds for refusing to grant immunity as mentioned above, but there are also circumstances to consider the bankrupt as follows.

In other words, there is no property remaining after the bankrupt has already made all the assets, and it is a crime to a certain extent of damage to the creditors by a criminal punishment, and the bankrupt has already been faced with his or her relatives and in particular, from his or her children due to the above speculative waste, and if it is sense that the bankrupt's age has already exceeded 62 years of age, it is too harsh that the bankrupt's demand for all of his or her obligations under the circumstances under which the bankrupt is faced with, if he or she is aware of the fact that the bankrupt's age has already been exceeded 62 years of age, it would not allow any more re-determination to the bankrupt.

Among the creditors, it seems that the creditors were working as subordinate employees in one workplace with the bankrupt, and they were able to lend money for the psychological burden due to the discipline of the company, and the bankrupt was not able to suspend the process of borrowing money, such as mobilization of money to a certain degree of false statement.

However, the bankrupt does not have to pay the above debt from the beginning, and it is difficult for the bankrupt to make efforts to repay the debt by lending money and disposing of property. Nevertheless, it seems that the bankrupt is ultimately born due to the excessive amount of debt.

Therefore, even if it is possible for the bankrupt to seriously prevent such a scambling of the bankrupt, it is reasonable to view that the creditors, as one time and one-time, appeal against the bankruptcy, who was the external wife that was faced with by the person under his or her command, for a certain degree of tolerance to the extent, in the relationship with the unconstitutionality of local administration as a part of the time and place of work for the creditors.

In addition, it is natural that the creditors of financial institutions have risks where there are profits, and it may be caused by negligence which has not been strictly managed credit, and the risks arising in the course of pursuing profits should naturally be predicted and reflected in the interest rate and accumulated the allowance for bad debts.The creditors of financial institutions can defend that these losses will eventually be transferred to general customers. However, considering the function of the social safety net of the bankruptcy exemption system, it can be justified that such burden is equally divided into the whole members of society.

It is natural to pay money if it is borrowed money in accordance with the basic principles of judicial order. However, if one student fails to repay it any longer, and if it is rationalizing the phenomenon, it would not be consistent with the dignity and value of human being pursued by the Constitution.

The debtor has already been old and has no special function, and it seems difficult to obtain stable work as a criminal recordr. In light of this point, it is difficult for the bankrupt to expect that he will obtain more income than able to life life for the remaining life.

Therefore, this Court determines that the tolerance of immunity to the bankrupt is a way to satisfy the demand of the Constitution, notwithstanding the above reasons for refusing to grant immunity.

The obligees want to make it reasonable for the bankrupt to see life-long creditors and their families to commit a crime of deceiving life-long creditors and their families, and to see life-sustaining errors.

3. Conclusion

For the above reasons, it is decided as per the Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-dong