beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the attached Form. The plaintiff's judgment on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is examined.
Where a decision to grant permission for discharge to the debtor becomes final and conclusive, the debtor shall be exempted from all his/her obligations to any bankruptcy creditor, and in such cases, the debtor shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims and the executory power of filing a lawsuit that becomes natural obligations.
Meanwhile, Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "a claim which is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor" means a case where the obligor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted 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 as provided in the above Article even
(1) In light of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul and Eul Nos. 1 through 3, 2007, Defendant A rendered bankruptcy and immunity application No. 2007Hadern District Court No. 2990, 2007, 3009, and the above court decided to grant immunity on Nov. 9, 2007. The above exemption decision becomes final and conclusive on Nov. 27, 2007; Defendant B obtained an application for immunity from each of the above courts as the Incheon District Court’s Decision No. 20089, Feb. 27, 2008; and Defendant B did not obtain the aforementioned exemption order from each of the Defendants.
However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient to recognize the existence of the instant loan claim.