(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단14124

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단14124

면책확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2012, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Plaintiff and C to seek a return of investment funds, and received a payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 26 million calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment, and the amount of KRW 48,920 per annum for demand procedure expenses,” and the payment order was finalized as it is.

B. On January 15, 2014, upon filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Daejeon District Court, the Plaintiff was granted a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The decision was finalized as of January 30, 2014 by Daejeon District Court 2013Hadan1787 and 2013Ma1790 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the instant application to grant immunity is omitted in the list of creditors.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number)

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors does not intend to be caused by the plaintiff's negligence, and therefore, the decision of this case extends to the claim of this case. The defendant asserted that the payment order of this case was served on the plaintiff before the application of this case was filed, and the plaintiff intentionally omitted the claim of this case in the list of creditors even though he was well aware of the existence of the claim of this case, and thus, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's claim of this case was unjustifiable.

3. With respect to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case ex officio, there should be interests in confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights in the lawsuit for confirmation. The benefits of confirmation are risks in present in the Plaintiff’s rights and legal status.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.24 2013가단288252

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.02.07 2017가단3634

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.04.18 2017가단20084

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.10.28 2020가단68557

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단71247