beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s loans amounting to KRW 2,300,000 based on the judgment of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2005 Ghana11040.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 15, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of loans with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2005Da111040, and was sentenced to a judgment ordering the payment of KRW 2,300,000 and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daegu District Court No. 2009Hadan8303, 2009Da8303, July 26, 2010. The said decision became final and conclusive on August 10, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 5, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff's liability for the judgment of this case against the defendant shall be exempted.
B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, since the plaintiff did not enter the judgment amount of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith at the time of applying for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, the defendant alleged that the liability for the judgment amount of this case does not be exempted from liability. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff did not enter the judgment amount of this case in the list of creditors at the time of applying for bankruptcy and exemption from liability. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff knew the existence of the judgment amount of this case at the time of applying for bankruptcy and exemption from liability and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not enter it in the list of creditors in the list of creditors, the judgment of this case was progress by service, and the judgment of this case was finalized by service, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant started the procedure of property specification or compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case, just because the plaintiff was a joint and several surety for the plaintiff's loan obligation.