beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da11828, 2012Hadan11828, and was granted immunity on May 21, 2013. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff did not accurately recognize the Defendant’s loan claims amounting to KRW 20 million against the Plaintiff, and the claim was omitted in the Plaintiff’s list.
However, as long as the plaintiff did not neglect the above bonds in bad faith, the effect of exemption is not limited to the above bonds, thus seeking confirmation.
2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a debtor's right not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" refers to a case where the debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, is not entered in the list of creditors. Thus, if the debtor 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-exempt claim under the above provision, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision, even if the debtor was negligent
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083 Decided October 14, 2010) comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s obligation upon which the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt and exempted was 4 communications expenses and the guaranteed liability for financial institutions, such as Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the National Bank, and the new card; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant is the loan obligation worth KRW 20 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in light of the following: (c) the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time of the application for bankruptcy and immunity; and (d) the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant at the time of the application for immunity, in light of the following circumstances, etc.
Therefore, even if the plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.