손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. From March 2011 to July 201, 201, the Defendant issued or endorsed ten copies of promissory notes equivalent to the total face value of KRW 244,068,000 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had a total of KRW 244,068,00 on behalf of the Defendant.
B. On December 29, 2011, the Defendant received a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures to appoint the Defendant as a custodian without appointing a separate custodian (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”), and on September 19, 2012, the rehabilitation plan was approved on December 29, 201, and the Plaintiff’s claim for bills was not included in the list of rehabilitation creditors.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s claim for bills should have been entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors as a custodian of rehabilitation procedures, the Defendant did not include the Plaintiff’s claim for bills in the rehabilitation plan in breach of the duty of due care of a good manager under Article 82 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”).
As a result, the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to 158,64,200 won (244,068,000 won x 65% of the repayment rate of the rehabilitation plan), which is the amount that the Plaintiff could have been repaid in the rehabilitation procedure, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the above KRW 158,64,200 and the delay damages.
3. Article 82 of the Act provides that when a custodian performs his/her duties with the care of a good manager, and neglects his/her care, interested parties are liable to compensate for damages. Thus, a certain rehabilitation claim was not entered on the list of rehabilitation creditors by intention or negligence of a custodian or an employee, and accordingly, the creditor was unable to report his/her claim to the debtor because he/she did not know that the rehabilitation procedure is in progress, thereby causing disadvantages to the forfeiture of the right following the authorization