(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단78313

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가단78313

면책확인

Text

1. Ascertainment that the Plaintiff’s obligation in the separate sheet against the Defendant was exempted.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. On July 14, 2003, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to repay loans to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligation”) to the Plaintiff. On July 18, 2006, the Plaintiff omitted the instant obligation return in filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Busan District Court under the Busan District Court Order No. 2006Hadan2740 and 2006Ha2862. As a result, on April 2, 2007 and the same year.

5. 22. A bankruptcy was declared and immunity was granted upon the omission of the instant obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy (hereinafter “the Act”) refers to a case where a debtor, despite being aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted, has failed to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, when the debtor 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 prescribed by the said Act. However, if the debtor knew of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim as prescribed by the said Act, even if the debtor failed to enter it in

The reason why a claim not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the creditor is deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the immunity procedure, and accordingly, the exemption is permitted and confirmed without any objective verification as to the grounds for non-permission of immunity prescribed in Article 564 of the Act, and thus, the debtor goes beyond the responsibility of the debtor to pay his/her obligations in principle. Thus, the creditor who is at a disadvantage without having the opportunity to participate in the above procedure

Therefore, it is inconsistent with facts.

참조조문

-채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.12.19 2017가단2555

-수원지방법원 2015.07.15 2014가단66341

-인천지방법원 2018.11.23 2018가단14136

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.19 2020나40350

-인천지방법원 2019.08.22 2019가단222224