2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On December 11, 1980, the Defendant Company received a decision to commence reorganization proceedings in the case of reorganization of the Company 80§958 from this court (the trade name at the time was the same chemical company, but the trade name was changed to macropath on February 27, 1993).

B. In the above reorganization proceedings, the Plaintiff reported the claim amount of KRW 121, 372, and 297 in the amount of 491, Jan. 31, 1981 under the above reorganization proceedings, and the administrator failed to raise an objection to the above reported claim at the claim inspection date, and the above claim became final and conclusive as reorganization claim.

C. On December 14, 1981, the reorganization program was approved by the court, and the reorganization program was completed on September 30, 1992 during the reorganization program.

D. Under the above reorganization proceedings, Choung-a Co., Ltd. appointed as a receiver shall set off the claim amounting to KRW 111, 372, and 297 among the claim amount of KRW 141, 128, and 190 against the plaintiff. Of the above reorganization claim against the plaintiff, the claim amounting to KRW 111, 372, and 297 among the above reorganization claim against the defendant shall be set off within the equivalent amount by using the claim amount of KRW 111, 372, and 297, among the above reorganization claim against the plaintiff, the claim amounting to KRW 111, 372, and 297 shall be set off within the equivalent amount. The written consent of set-off (Evidence No. 5) in the name of the plaintiff was attached before this court filed an application for a set-off

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 5, Nos. 1 to 14, and all purports of the pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is seeking confirmation that the above offset agreement was forged and that the above offset agreement was forged and void in violation of Article 162(1) of the Company Reorganization Act.

(b) Markets:

A set-off takes effect by either of the parties to a claim in the form of set-off, and its effect is not determined depending on the consent of the other party, and this legal doctrine applies to a claim extinguished by a set-off even if the claim is a reorganization claim. Therefore, in this case where the administrator of the defendant company declared the intent of set-off to the plaintiff with the permission of the reorganization court, the issue of whether the above written consent of set-off has been forged shall have no effect

In addition, it is clear that there is any legal relationship between the assertion that the declaration of intention of offset in violation of Article 162 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act and the assertion that the written consent of offset was forged, but it is limited to the case where a reorganization creditor or security holder offsets a reorganization claim or security against a reorganization company with automatic claim under Article 162 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act. The manager of the reorganization company can set off a reorganization claim or security with passive claim at any time with the permission of the court even after the period for reporting the obligation is completed. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff has no legal interest to seek confirmation on the forgery of the above offset agreement.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Nam-nam