1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion that when the plaintiff sought the payment of the loan against the defendant, the defendant asserted that the immunity decision became final and conclusive in the individual bankruptcy procedure applied by the defendant.

B. (1) The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides that an obligor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all liability for all obligations owed to a bankruptcy creditor, except for dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings.

Here, immunity means that a debtor continues to exist, but cannot enforce the performance of his/her obligation to the debtor in bankruptcy. As such, when immunity for the debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, a claim entitled to immunity would lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides for a claim that is not entered in the creditor’s list in bad faith as part of non-exempt claims. Since a debtor is aware of the existence of an obligation against the debtor before immunity is granted, a claim that is not entered in the creditor’s list in bad faith means a case where the debtor knows the existence of an obligation to the bankruptcy creditor before the immunity is granted, it does not constitute non-exempt claims even if the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, but otherwise, if the debtor was not recorded in the creditor’s list, it constitutes non-exempt claims.

(2) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Hadan23267, 2006Ha206Ma24718 on August 14, 2010, and the above court declared bankrupt against the Defendant on October 13, 2006, and on January 8, 2007, comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of the pleadings in each of subparagraphs 2-1 and 2-2 of Article 2010 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010).