logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015가단68834
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity for personal bankruptcy and immunity with Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Hadan600, 2013Ma600, and 2013Ma600. The said court rendered a decision to grant immunity on August 29, 2013, and the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on September 13, 2013.

At the time of application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant in the list of creditors.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was that at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s obligations to the Defendant on the list of creditors, and thus, sought confirmation of the Defendant’s obligations.

B. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the obligor 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500, Jan. 11, 2007). However, if the obligor 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-

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30478, Jul. 15, 2010). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant prior to the decision to grant immunity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed for reasons.