Appellant

Jeju District Court Order 2007Hadan1317 (1318, 2007) dated January 28, 2008

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

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

A. The appellant, on October 12, 2007, filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with this court on the ground that the appellant bears a total of 483,419,306 won (= principal 207,069,256 + interest and delay damages 276,250,050) against 32 creditors, such as the applicant and 2,3,4,5,5,6, Jeju Bank, Jeju Bank, and Desiramo Asset-backed Limited Company, etc. (i.e., the principal 207,069,256 + interest and delay damages 276,250,050).

B. However, even though the appellant stated in the list of property submitted at the time of filing a report of bankruptcy and exemption from liability that he owned an automobile, he did not enter the type of the automobile, the annual type, and the market price, and even though the monthly income of 1, other than her husband, was stated in the current list of living conditions as KRW 1,400,000, the appellant did not attach the global income tax confirmation report. The appellant did not submit the creditor’s certificate of liability to the creditor, other than the creditor, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, s

C. On December 28, 2007, the lower court issued an order of correction to submit a certificate of property tax assessment to the appellant (hereinafter “order of correction of this case”) from 202 to 207 to 1007, stating ① the details of the automobile on the inventory along with explanatory materials, ② submit a criminal judgment, ③ submit a family’s list, ④ submit a certified copy of the family’s residential building, ⑤ submit a certificate of property tax assessment from 2002 to 2007, and 6) submit evidentiary documents to the obligees as stated in the above

D. On January 15, 2008, the appellant, upon receipt of the instant order of correction, submitted the register of automobiles registered in the name of the appellant (vehicle number omitted), the criminal judgment of the appellant and the investigation record of the suspect, the husband’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s tax base certificate, the register of the residence building register, the certificate of property tax imposition from 2002 to 2007 by the appellant’s non-applicant’s certificate, and the evidence of debt evidence against non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-applicant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’s non-appellant’

E. On January 28, 2008, the lower court dismissed the appellant’s petition for bankruptcy on the ground that the appellant failed to faithfully implement the instant order of correction.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal and determination thereof

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

While the appellant bears a total of KRW 483,419,306 on the other hand, it is impossible for the appellant to repay the above debt because it is currently without fault, there is a cause of bankruptcy, and there is a faithful response to the instant order of correction. Therefore, the order of the court below is unreasonable.

B. Determination

However, according to the above facts, the appellant alleged that he/she bears the obligation of the total of KRW 483,419,306 (principal principal 207,069,256 + interest and delay damages 276,250,050). However, he/she did not submit evidence of the total of KRW 365,373,723 ( principal 138,814,723 + interest and delay damages 226,59,000) (the principal 138,814,723 + interest and delay damages 226,59,000). (The appellant submitted a notarial deed as evidence of the debt reliance on 4, 203, but the above notarial deed falls under the notarial deed as evidence proving the amount of obligation at the time of August 2, 2003, and it is not sufficient that he/she did not use the current amount of obligation after 5 years or more from the filing of the notarial deed.)

In addition, as seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the appellant’s repayment of liability continues to be impossible in general, in light of the following: (i) it is impossible to determine the exact amount of liability of the appellant; (ii) it is difficult to conclude that the appellant’s repayment of liability is possible in general, in general, in view of the fact that the appellant’s physical condition of 48 years old is a woman with a healthy age of 48; (iii) it is possible to increase income in the future due to his experience in operating the Amino Teaching School; and (iv) it is difficult

Therefore, all of the appellant's arguments are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the court below is legitimate, and the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoonn-ju (Presiding Judge)