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 August 25, 2005, the court rendered a ruling that the above court shall pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2005, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant, and the above ruling became final and conclusive on September 15, 2005.
B. The Plaintiff was granted immunity on April 2, 2010 at the case of filing an application for exemption from 2009do4054, 2009Hadan4056, which became final and conclusive on April 17, 2010, and the Plaintiff omitted the claim for the said judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”) in the list of creditors of the said case.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The party's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff made a lease on a deposit basis to the defendant, who is the lessee, and the defendant thought that the lease on a deposit basis was granted, and the decision of exemption became final and conclusive without entering it in the creditor list, and then he knew the existence thereof only after being served with the delivery of the seizure and collection order based on the above judgment. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case also has the effect of immunity since the plaintiff was found to have omitted in bad faith with the knowledge of the claim of this case.
B. “Claims in bad faith not entered in the list of creditors” under the main text of Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, but is not entered in the list of creditors.
If a 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 as prescribed in the above provision, but otherwise, if the debtor was aware of the existence of the obligation, he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.