beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 14, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant.
B. On April 10, 2008, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff, and would make payment by April 10, 2009,” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
C. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant was subject to the Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2016Hadan1304 and 2016 Ma1304, and was subject to the bankruptcy and application for immunity. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant was subject to the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). Each of the above decisions became final and conclusive around that time.
However, the defendant did not enter the obligation against the plaintiff in the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy immunity case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. 1) The Defendant: (a) received KRW 30,00,000 from the Plaintiff through C, the Plaintiff’s office, and considered that C would have paid it to the Plaintiff as each subparagraph; (b) even if the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, C had already been fully deducted from the monthly salary or tax, etc., for which C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim was not omitted in bad faith. Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff was exempted by the instant exemption permission decision; (b) the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the grounds that there is no benefit of protecting the rights; and (c) the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff in bad faith was omitted in the said list, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter
B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant did not enter the obligation to the Plaintiff in the list of creditors in the bankruptcy exemption case is recognized.
However, above.