logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.23 2015가단5255411
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s loan principal amounted to KRW 2,088,906 on November 26, 2001 and interest thereon amounting to KRW 11,568,870 on the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a loan from the Savings Bank as the date of maturity on May 26, 2005, with a comprehensive loan subject. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff reached KRW 2,088,906, interest rate of KRW 11,568,870 (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”), and the Defendant is the bankruptcy trustee of the said bankruptcy debtor.

B. On May 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daejeon District Court No. 2007Hadan8898, 2007Da8896, and was granted immunity, and the said decision was finalized on May 23, 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is exempt from the responsibility for the instant loan obligations unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not enter the debt of this case in the creditor list in bad faith at the time when the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption from liability, the liability for the debt of this case is not exempted. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to enter the debt of this case at the time when the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption from liability in the creditor list can be acknowledged pursuant to the whole purport of evidence No. 2-1 and oral argument. However, there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff knew the existence of the debt of this case at the time of applying for bankruptcy and exemption from liability and did not enter it in the creditor list.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow