beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on September 7, 2009 based on the payment order issued by the Seoul Central District Court 2009 tea92758.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Guj92758 Decided September 7, 2009, the payment order (hereinafter “the payment order of this case”) was finalized on September 7, 2009, when the payment order of the principal and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 18, 2009 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the principal and the damages for delay”) with respect to KRW 3,939,581 and its KRW 1,66,666 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 3,9,581 and the damages for delay (hereinafter “the above principal and the damages for delay”) was paid to the Defendant.
B. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Suwon District Court No. 2015Hadan1735, 2015Ma1735 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The instant immunity became final and conclusive on February 15, 2017, and the list of creditors prepared at that time omitted the entry of the instant credit.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The debtor's property claim arising before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, that is, the bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from the effect of the immunity, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, even though the immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 5
According to the above facts, the defendant's claim for the loan of this case against the plaintiff is a claim for property arising from a cause arising before the bankruptcy is declared, and its responsibility is exempted as the immunity decision of this case becomes final and conclusive, and barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution against the plaintiff of this case under the payment order of this case against the plaintiff cannot be permitted.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Since the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the instant loan claim and did not enter it in the list of creditors, the Defendant’s assertion does not exempt the Defendant from liability for the said claim.