beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 6, 2006, Nonparty D borrowed KRW 60 million from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation.
Accordingly, in 2006, No. 498, No. 498, No. 2006, No. 3000, No. 3100.
B. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and exemption from liability and received immunity from immunity (Seoul District Court Order 2012Da2724 decided Oct. 28, 201), and on November 12, 2013, the above decision became final and conclusive.
However, the list of creditors prepared at the time does not include the obligation of the joint and several guarantee against the defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition]: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the debt of the instant joint and several liability was exempted according to the effect of the above immunity decision, and the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff did not enter in the creditor list in bad faith and did not constitute non-exempt claim.
B. Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to 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. Thus, 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, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision even if he did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.
The reason why a claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the creditor is deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, as well as the above law.