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. On September 20, 2004, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for general household loan loans and carried out the relevant loans.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Hadan22088 and 2009Ma22088, and was declared bankrupt on September 29, 2010 and granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”). On October 14, 2010, the instant immunity exemption became final and conclusive.
However, the defendant was omitted in the list of creditors submitted by the plaintiff.
C. Around March 2016, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to perform the instant loan obligations, and the amount of debt as of March 8, 2016 is KRW 31,905,809.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, each entry of Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Each party’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Seoul Central District Court granted the instant immunity on September 29, 2010. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s list on the grounds that it was unaware of the existence of the obligation to grant the instant loan to the Defendant. However, the effect of the instant immunity exemption is comprehensively limited to the Defendant’s claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is exempt from the obligation to grant the instant loan.
(2) As the Plaintiff alleged in the Defendant’s assertion omitted the obligation of the instant loan in bad faith from the list of creditors, the Defendant is not exempt from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 566(7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).
B. (1) Determination is based on Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which states that “a claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter the same in the creditors’ list. Therefore, when the obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation,