logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.24 2019가단9825
면책확인
Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in evidence Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the court below rendered a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter referred to as "decision of performance recommendation of this case") with respect to the plaintiff on May 14, 2018 that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 17 million won and interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 20, 2018 to the date of full payment," and that the above decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter referred to as "decision of performance recommendation of this case") became final and conclusive on November 4, 2018. Bankruptcy Act (Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2018Hau785) with respect to the plaintiff on May 14, 2018, which became final and conclusive on August 22, 2018.

2. We examine ex officio the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the confirmation of discharge of Plaintiff’s obligation based on the decision on performance recommendation as to the part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of the decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor, where a claim is disputed whether it constitutes a non-exempt claim, an obligor may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, but in relation to a creditor who holds the title to the claim with respect to the exempted obligation, an obligor filed a lawsuit of objection to the claim and seeks to exclude the executory power based on the effect of immunity is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the current unstable and danger in the legal position. In such a case, seeking confirmation of immunity is not a final resolution of the dispute, and is unlawful

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). According to the foregoing, the instant decision on the performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation”) is rendered in relation to the Defendant (creditor) who holds the title of debt with respect to the instant decision on performance recommendation.

arrow