beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 296,292,892 as well as 20% per annum from June 28, 2005 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From December 2002, the Plaintiff supplied goods such as peep to the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted that the credit goods price that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant reached KRW 296,292,892 on November 30, 2004, and applied for the payment order to the Defendant as Busan District Court 2005Da24659 on June 21, 2005, and applied for the payment order to the Defendant. The payment order was issued to order the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The above payment order was served to the Defendant on June 27, 2005, and was finalized on July 12, 2005.
B. On July 18, 2007, the Defendant filed an application for immunity and bankruptcy with the Busan District Court, and received a bankruptcy on June 11, 2008 from the above court (2007Hadan5035), and thereafter, the above immunity became final and conclusive on August 22, 2008 (2007do5051). The list of creditors accompanying the Defendant’s bankruptcy and application for immunity did not state the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant goods against the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and whether all pleadings are held
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit seeking implementation is unlawful, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against the Defendant was exempted under Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), upon confirmation of a decision to grant immunity against the Defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking its implementation is unlawful.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the claim for the price of goods in this case constitutes “a claim not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, namely, a non-exempt claim.
B. (1) Determination is made by the obligor under Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, “the right not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith.”