beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans extended to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2018 at the Changwon District Court 2018Guj87, Changwon District Court 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of the remaining loan of KRW 14.8 million and its delay damages (hereinafter “the instant claim”), on the ground that the Changwon District Court 201Kacheon-gun Court 2018Ra87, supra, “10 million won to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2005,” and leased KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on July 21, 201, after one month thereafter, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 200,000 from the Plaintiff on July 21, 2011.” The said court accepted the payment order on August 3, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant payment order order”). The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On the other hand, on February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy with the Daegu District Court Decision 2008Hadan921, and 2008Ma921, respectively. After being declared bankrupt by the above court, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on November 3, 2008, and the above immunity became final and conclusive around that time.
The decision to grant immunity in this case is referred to as "the decision to grant immunity in this case"
(i) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “A debtor granted immunity shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure,” and the claim in this case constitutes a property claim arising from a cause prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and thus, the plaintiff was exempted from its responsibility for the claim in this case against the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant's claim shall not be exempted since the plaintiff was maliciously omitted from the list of creditors.
The obligor referred to in Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is maliciously.