beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.
Reasons
1. Details of the collection order;
A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 201695, with respect to the amount up to KRW 60,000,000 among the claim for the purchase price of goods against D based on a promissory note No. 451, 2012, a notary public C office deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”). The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on September 6, 2013.
B. On September 7, 2013, the Defendant filed an immediate appeal under the Suwon District Court 2013Ra1703, stating that “The transaction relation with D was terminated as of September 7, 2013, and the amount of unpaid goods was merely KRW 10,384,842.” However, on October 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on the ground that the absence or extinguishment of the seized claim cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Article 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that when a decision to authorize a repayment plan is made, any compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition based on individual rehabilitation claims shall lose its validity. Article 580(1)1 of the same Act provides that “All assets owned by the debtor at the time the individual rehabilitation procedure is commenced and all claims to be exercised by the debtor in the future due to reasons arising prior to the commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure are included in the individual rehabilitation estate.”
On October 4, 2013, D filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013da185730, Jul. 7, 2014, following the court rendered a decision to authorize the repayment plan on Nov. 7, 2014; and the fact that the claims on the Plaintiff’s notarial deeds against D are recorded in the table of rehabilitation creditors.