{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1996-93",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:d11f04c53d6446f1fda873d8dc358c546f6358a563bba26c562063165481faef",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 1996:93, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-1996-93",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1996-93",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 1996:93, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Gäldenären har ansetts vara skyldig att, vid de försök till uppgörelse med borgenärerna som förutsätts ha skett innan skuldsanering kan komma ifråga, klarlägga sin ekonomiska situation för alla berörda borgenärer och inte blott ha framställt önskemål om avbetalning hos vissa borgenärer.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 1996."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1996-93",
  "softwareVersion": "45a3f32538f50485",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-1996-93, RH 1996:93, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1996-93 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:51856e29b4e3c6b1, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/rh-1996-93/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:d11f04c53d6446f1fda873d8dc358c546f6358a563bba26c562063165481faef",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:d11f04c53d6446f1fda873d8dc358c546f6358a563bba26c562063165481faef",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T07:14:39.209Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1996-93",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}