beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff became a joint and several surety in obtaining a loan of KRW 8 million from the Daewoo Capital Co., Ltd. on July 19, 2002 from Nonparty B.
B. The above loans were transferred in sequence to the Defendant by the promoting mutual savings bank, the limited liability company, the limited liability partnership loan, the credit deposit loan to Simpo Co., Ltd. and the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff received a decision of admitting immunity on December 23, 2009 by filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with Busan District Court No. 2009Hadan3171, 2009Da3177, but did not enter the above claim due to joint and several surety in the creditor list (hereinafter “instant claim”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the assertion and judgment as above, barring any special circumstance, the instant claim for the takeover amount constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s liability was exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), barring special circumstances.
The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim constitutes non-exempt claim, since the plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim for the takeover of this case at the time of bankruptcy or exemption and did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith.
“Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act refers to cases where an obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the same Act. However, if an obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the same Act even if the obligor
. The facts;