Applicant (Law Firm Changwon, Attorneys Hwang Jong-py et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Changwon District Court Order 2014Da1995 dated October 15, 2015

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

According to the records of this case, on June 24, 2014, the debtor created a collateral of KRW 588,000,000 with respect to ○○○○○○ apartment building 105,801 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), which was one of his sole real estate in Seongdong-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). After selling the apartment of this case in this case around October 16, 2014, around 59,00,00 won, around the time of the bankruptcy and application for immunity, the debtor received an application for immunity of KRW 90,00,000,000,000 excluding the above collateral KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won and KRW 2,560,000,000,000,000,000) to Nonparty 1.

The above act by a debtor constitutes an act concerning the provision of a security or extinguishment of an obligation with the intent to give special benefits to a specific creditor upon knowing the existence of the cause of bankruptcy, and which does not belong to the debtor's obligation or the method or time does not belong to the debtor's obligation, it is reasonable to deem that the act by the debtor constitutes a cause for refusing to grant immunity under Articles 564 (1) 1 and 651 (1) 2

The debtor asserts that the act of the debtor's repayment of debts to the non-party 1, 208Ma1656 dated December 29, 2008 is not a ground for non-permission of the above discharge, in a case where the debtor's repayment of debts to the non-party 1, 2, and 3 with the knowledge that the cause of bankruptcy was attributable to the creditor, even if it was made with the intention of giving certain creditors special profits, it cannot be deemed that the act constitutes a ground for non-permission of discharge. Thus, the debtor's repayment of debts to the non-party 1, 2, and 3 does not constitute a ground for non-permission

However, there is no evidence to support that the debtor's each obligation against the non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3 has been due or that the debtor has reached due date, such as receiving a claim for the performance of the above obligation, and there is no evidence to support that the debtor's each obligation against the non-party 1, the debtor and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 have reached due date (the submitted data alone can only identify the time when the debtor received the payment from the above persons). In light of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the status quo between the debtor and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the sale of the apartment in this case, and the short time interval between the bankruptcy and the application for immunity in this case, it is difficult

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jae-young (Presiding Judge)