logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.11.04 2019가단5603
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the statements in Evidence A Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Defendant’s issuance of a payment order to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2014 to the Jeju District Court No. 2014j672, Mar. 20, 2014; and the Plaintiff’s application for bankruptcy and exemption under Jeju District Court Decision No. 2014Hau504, 2014, 2014, 503, and 2014, the Defendant’s application for bankruptcy and exemption was decided as of June 9, 2016 and became final and conclusive as of July 1, 2016; and the fact that the Defendant’s claim for acquisition was omitted in the list of creditors in the above bankruptcy and exemption case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that even though the plaintiff made best efforts to avoid an omission in the creditor's list in the above bankruptcy procedure, he did not know that the defendant's claim for the takeover amount was known even after the bankruptcy was declared, and did not intentionally omit it. Thus, the defendant's claim for the takeover amount under the payment order against the plaintiff was exempted, and therefore, the defendant's compulsory execution should not be denied.

3. (1) Determination is based on Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which states that a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and that such claim 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, even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act.

The reasons for excluding claims not entered in the list of creditors are to protect creditors who are at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the procedure.

arrow