logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가합4958
면책확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim for loans against the defendant C by Busan District Court 2003Kadan157623 is based on the judgment of 50,000.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The facts of recognition 1) D was sentenced to a judgment (non-drawing) that “the Defendant (referring to the Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (D) the amount of KRW 200 million and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from September 8, 2002 to the date of complete payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 1, 2002. (2) D transferred the above credit to the Defendant on October 28, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff on November 4, 2013.

(C) On the other hand, on December 24, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court 2010Hadan3268, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court 2010Hang3269 (hereinafter “instant application for immunity from bankruptcy and immunity”).

) On December 10, 2012, the decision to grant immunity (hereinafter referred to as the “decision to grant immunity”) is the case’s decision to grant immunity.

(4) Although the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity was indicated in the claim amounting to KRW 107,784,836 of the Chang Fisheries Cooperatives, the claim amount of the acquisition amount was not indicated in the claim amount of this case.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1A) The Plaintiff prepared a list of creditors through the creditors’ meeting of debts and debts to all creditors who are memory at the time of the bankruptcy and application for immunity of the instant case. Since the obligation to Defendant B is not entered in bad faith, the above obligation to Defendant B against the Defendant should be deemed exempted from the immunity of the instant case.

B) Since Defendant B was aware of the existence of the instant obligation, but did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith, the Plaintiff’s liability for the instant obligation to acquire the instant amount is not exempted pursuant to Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. (2) Determination is the debtor’s rehabilitation.

arrow