logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.16 2019가단10105
면책확인의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. applied for a payment order of the loan claim against the Plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea19526), and received the payment order on April 4, 2016 from the above court (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On April 21, 2016, the original copy of the payment order was served on the Plaintiff on April 21, 2016, and was finalized on May 10, 2016.

B. On December 30, 2016, D Co., Ltd. transferred a loan claim based on the instant payment order to the Defendant and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the claim on or around January 20, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (In Incheon District Court Decision 2017Hadan2365, 2017Ma2363), and received a bankruptcy decision from the above court, and the decision became final and conclusive on February 8, 2019 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity on January 22, 2019.

At the time of bankruptcy and immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the claim based on the payment order of this case in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the payment order of this case was exempted due to bankruptcy and exemption from immunity. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the plaintiff when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in present unstable and dangerous, and the removal of such apprehension and danger.

Where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim is confirmed notwithstanding the confirmation of immunity for the debtor in bankruptcy, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her right or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditors who hold executive titles for the exempted obligation.

arrow