beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
2. The defendant's decision on February 19, 2009 against the plaintiff was rendered by Busan District Court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) was unable to receive the judgment of the previous suit of this case, and the Plaintiff did not enter the loan claim of this case in the list of creditors because it did not know the existence of the loan claim of this case, so the loan of this case was exempted by the above immunity decision. 2) Even if the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the loan claim of this case, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the loan claim of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s liability for the loan of this case falls under the proviso of Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
3) Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of the previous suit of this case shall not be permitted. (B) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was directly served with the duplicate of the complaint of the previous suit of this case, it cannot be said that the existence of the loan claim of this case was not known. Thus, the loan claim of this case constitutes “a claim which is not recorded in the creditors’ list in bad faith” as provided by Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and is excluded from
2. Since the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's declaration of bankruptcy, he/she does not fall under the above proviso and thus exempt the plaintiff's liability
3. Determination
A. 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 the obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision of immunity, but is not entered in the list of creditors. Therefore, if the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it