beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Grounds for entering this case by the court in this case are stated, Section 2-B of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the application of paragraph (2) above, and such reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the judgment below, which was accepted by the defendant, omitted from the list of creditors who known the existence of loans to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank prior to the above decision on immunity, while the plaintiff knew of the existence of loans to the above Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, and the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was not exempted pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Act.
According to the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Act, a debtor is not exempt from liability with respect to a claim that is not entered in the creditor list in bad faith. The term "claim that is not entered in the creditor list in bad faith" refers to the case where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the creditor list. Thus, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act, but if the debtor was aware of the existence of an obligation, it constitutes a non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act even
The reason why a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors is excluded from the list of creditors, if there is a creditor who is not entered in the list of creditors, the creditor is deprived of the opportunity to file an objection, etc. to the application for immunity within the scope of the procedure for immunity, and accordingly, the immunity is permitted and the debtor becomes final and conclusive, without any objective verification as to the reason for refusing to grant immunity stipulated in Article 564 of the Act.