logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가단13379
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the claim of this case") was omitted in the list of creditors because he was unaware of the existence of the defendant's claim against the plaintiff, and that the claim of this case was exempted according to the decision to grant immunity when Busan District Court Decision 2014Da1806, 2014.

As to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith, the claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claim.

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a debtor's right not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith is not entered in the list of creditors despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted. Therefore, when 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 if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if the debtor did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.

Therefore, whether a debtor's bad faith with respect to the preparation of a list of creditors that do not fit the facts should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the details of omitted claims, the relationship between the debtor and the creditor, the relationship between the creditor and the debtor, the circumstances surrounding the omission, and whether the debtor's explanation and objective data are consistent with the objective data. The mere data submitted by the debtor alone does not seem to have any reason to deny immunity (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). We need not recognize the debtor's good faith easily on the sole basis of the following circumstances, namely, ① the original creditor of the claim of this case.

arrow