beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is denied based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5156938.
2.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court No. 2015da5156938, and the said court rendered a judgment on April 29, 2015 that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from April 16, 2015 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 16,81,856 and KRW 6,560,731 as to KRW 16,81,856 and KRW 6,560,731 (hereinafter “instant judgment”); and the Defendant’s claim for the amount of money taken over is referred to as “the instant claim” or “the instant obligation”).
The instant judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015.
The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Jeonju District Court No. 2017Hadan337, 2017Ma337, and was granted immunity on April 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant immunity”).
The decision on immunity in this case became final and conclusive on May 11, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the above fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), and the overall purport of pleading, the court below's determination as to the cause of claim for judgment as to the whole purport of pleading, barring special circumstances, execution based on the judgment of this case should not be allowed.
The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion was that the plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith in the bankruptcy and exemption procedure, and thus the claim of this case constitutes non-exempt claims.
Judgment
"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act means cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision, but otherwise, the debtor knows the existence of an obligation.