logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나7696
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the lawsuits against the defendant by the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,00 from the Heung Credit Depository. The Defendant’s loan claims amounting to KRW 10,769,854 (hereinafter “instant loan claims”). The sum of the principal and KRW 574,536, interest KRW 10,040,918 as of March 31, 2017, is KRW 10,769,854 (hereinafter “instant loan claims”).

B. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the above loan claims against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and on June 2, 2017, notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim and reached the Defendant at that time.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant was declared bankrupt and granted immunity on July 8, 2013 by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Ulsan District Court 2012Hadan434, 2012Ma434, and the Defendant became final and conclusive on July 23, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the Defendant served the judgment of the first instance court on the instant case on September 12, 2017, and had filed a subsequent appeal within 14 days thereafter. However, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the instant subsequent appeal was unlawful on September 28, 2017.

On September 14, 2017, the fact that the defendant received a written appeal for subsequent completion from this court on September 14, 2017 is apparent in the record, so the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful due to the lapse of the period of appeal, as the plaintiff's appeal for subsequent completion is without merit.

3. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act regarding the lawfulness of the lawsuit, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except distribution under the bankruptcy procedure. Thus, a claim on property arising from a cause prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor, namely, a claim on property prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, becomes final and conclusive, and the liability is extinguished in principle, and the right to file a lawsuit and the power of execution, which ordinarily holds claims, become natural obligations, shall be lost.

arrow