beta
Text
1. The defendant's order for the payment of custody money case No. 2007 tea5271 dated May 17, 2007 against the plaintiff was issued against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Hadan37846, 2006, and 39363, and on May 3, 2007, upon which immunity was granted on May 22, 2007. The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim for custody (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”) that is deemed under the creditor’s list while filing an application for immunity.
B. The defendant kept the plaintiff on June 15, 2006 KRW 7.2 million, and the plaintiff filed an application for a payment order claiming the return of the remaining KRW 4.3 million with Suwon District Court Decision 2007Hu5271 on the ground that only part of them were returned and the remaining KRW 4.3 million was not returned, and the payment order ordering the payment of the above custody amount as of May 17, 2007 was issued and confirmed on June 20, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a claim for property arising from a cause prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor is a bankruptcy claim. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all obligations against a bankruptcy creditor except dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures. Thus, a claim for preserved money in this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against the plaintiff, and the fact that a decision to grant immunity against the plaintiff was confirmed on May 22, 2007 is as seen earlier. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order in this case cannot be permitted unless there are any special circumstances.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the exemption does not have the effect of the exemption since the plaintiff was aware that there was the obligation of the custody of this case and did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith.
However, the burden of proof for the obligor's bad faith is.