beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed 6% per annum from the plaintiff on September 14, 2009 from the plaintiff until the maturity date, 15% per annum in the case of arrears with a maturity of 3 months or less, 3,00,000 won per annum in the case of overdue debts with a maturity of 3 months or more, or 17% per annum in the case of overdue debts with a maturity of 3 months, and 16% per annum in the case of overdue debts with a maturity of 3 months. However, the defendant lost profits due to the plaintiff's failure to repay the above borrowed money at the time, and as of November 16, 2014, the defendant was liable to repay the borrowed money to the plaintiff at the interest rate of 2,873,250 won, interest rate of 2,346,800 won, 5,220,050 won per annum, 2017.
2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant is arguing that the Plaintiff’s claim was groundless since the Seoul Central District Court 2014da1891 applied for individual rehabilitation procedures. However, in the event that an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is filed, the individual rehabilitation court may, upon application or ex officio, order the prohibition or suspension of any act of compulsory execution based on individual rehabilitation claims or of repayment or demanding repayment of individual rehabilitation claims until the decision on the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is rendered, but the court may not order the suspension or prohibition of procedural acts (Article 593(1)4 proviso of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the Defendant received an order of prohibition in the individual rehabilitation procedures.
Even if the plaintiff does not have any impediment to filing and maintaining the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
However, since the defendant is subject to an order of prohibition, the plaintiff receives repayment from the defendant until the decision on the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedure is made.