beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. According to the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff set the period of repayment to the defendant on July 6, 2004 and lent three million won to the defendant on July 20, 2004.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3 million won of the above borrowed amount and 5% per annum from July 21, 2004 to March 25, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the due date for payment, to the plaintiff, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
2. The defendant's assertion and its decision are as follows: the defendant's decision to grant immunity from his own district court and the decision to grant immunity from his personal bankruptcy became final and conclusive; since the defendant did not omit the loan claim of this case in bad faith in the above bankruptcy and immunity case, the lawsuit of this case is also held to be unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights; thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes "claim which is not entered in the creditor's list in bad faith" as provided by Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, it does not affect the effect of immunity.
The term "claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "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, fails to enter it in the list of creditors. 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 under the above Act even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, but is not a non-exempt claim