beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 100,000,00 and 5% per annum from May 31, 1994 to March 20, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the repayment of loans with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da342398, and on March 31, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from May 31, 1994 to March 20, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment in a prior suit,” and the debt by the judgment in a prior suit was finalized on April 17, 2009.
B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 16, 2019 for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of claims according to the judgment in the prior suit.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 31, 1994 to March 20, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. Defendant D’s assertion and determination thereof
A. Defendant D’s assertion that Defendant D was declared bankrupt and immunity, but did not enter this case’s debt in the creditor list at the time, but did not have been omitted in bad faith, and thus, Defendant D was exempted from the instant debt.
B. The phrase “claim that is not recorded in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, and is not recorded 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 otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation.