logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.02.28 2017가단8108
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2010, C filed a lawsuit for the return of loans against the Plaintiff and South Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and on October 15, 2010, this Court rendered a judgment that “The Plaintiff and South Korea Ltd. shall jointly and severally pay C the amount of KRW 70 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 31, 2009 to August 13, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The Plaintiff and South Korea Ltd. appealed appealed, but dismissed on August 10, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “the claim or obligation of this case” according to the above final judgment

After the Defendant acquired the instant judgment claim from C, on June 29, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and the Namjin Co., Ltd. of the fact of transferring the claim, and was granted the inheritance execution clause as to the instant judgment in the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon Branch on July 13, 2017 in order to enforce compulsory execution against the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on March 15, 2017 by filing an application for immunity with the Gwangju District Court No. 2016, 1733 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The said decision became final and conclusive on March 31, 2017, and the list of creditors did not include C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers, if any), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the claim for judgment of this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the decision of immunity of this case is exempted from the Plaintiff’s liability pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(a) to this;

arrow