beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of promissory notes with the U.S. District Court Decision 2006Kadan41562, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, and on March 8, 2007, the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 53,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 14, 2006 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter referred to as “instant bill judgment”), which became final and conclusive on April 4, 2007, does not conflict between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the prescription period for the claim for promissory note judgment, and the defendant is obligated to pay the judgment amount to the plaintiff.
B. Since the Defendant’s judgment of promissory notes was rendered, the Defendant’s obligation of promissory notes judgment was exempted.
3. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has obtained immunity shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditors, except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures.
The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.
Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted shall lose the ability to file an ordinary claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). In full view of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the overall purport of pleadings Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Ulsan District Court Decision 2014Hadan252, Apr. 15, 2014 and received a decision to grant immunity on December 24, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was entered in the list of creditors submitted by the said Defendant, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2017Ra49, but received a decision to dismiss the said exemption on Nov. 9, 2018.