B. Whether the above director's tort liability for damages incurred by the reorganization creditor in reliance on performance commitment and failure to report the reorganization obligation upon the recommendation of the director general of the reorganization company

B. In a case where Eul, a general director of the reorganization company Eul, promises to repay the above bonds to Gap who held a loan claim against the above company immediately after the order of commencement of the reorganization order, and solicits Gap not to report the above loan claim as reorganization claim in the course of endorsement, transfer, and transfer of a promissory note issued by Byung Co., Ltd. as security, and thereby Gap suffered losses equivalent to the loan due to Gap's refusal of payment of the above promissory note, it is natural in light of the provisions of the Company Reorganization Act to lose his claim due to Gap's failure to report the above loan claim, which is a reorganization claim, as it is reasonable in light of the company Reorganization Act, and it cannot be deemed that the above act constitutes tort against Eul, and there is no causation between the above so-called "B" and the damages

In light of the court below's decision, the plaintiff lent 27,00,000 won in total to the non-party Pium Co., Ltd. between Apr. 20, 1983 and Feb. 23 of the same month. However, the above company received a decision of commencement of corporate reorganization from the Daegu District Court on Aug. 18, 1983 and became a reorganization claim, and the above loan became a reorganization claim. The plaintiff did not report the above claim as reorganization claim until Oct. 8 of the same year and Nov. 5, 1984 when the investigation procedure of reorganization claim was completed, and the above court decided to authorize reorganization plan of Dec. 21, 1985 without reporting the above claim as reorganization claim. Since the non-party et al. of the above reorganization company who borrowed the above money from the plaintiff did not report the above loan claim as reorganization claim to the plaintiff immediately after the order of commencement of corporate reorganization was issued, the above company should be held liable for damages to the non-party's above reorganization creditor's right to the above reorganization claim.

However, according to the Company Reorganization Act, if reorganization proceedings are commenced, the reorganization claims such as the above loans cannot be repaid without reorganization proceedings, received reimbursement, or extinguished, and the reorganization creditors shall acquire claims pursuant to the approved reorganization plan by participating in the reorganization proceedings after reporting the reorganization claims they hold, participating in an investigation date or an assembly of related persons, and exercising prescribed rights. If the approval of the reorganization plan is decided, the company shall be exempted from its liability for all the reorganization claims except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the reorganization plan or the Company Reorganization Act, so the reorganization creditors excluded from the provisions of the reorganization plan by failing to report the reorganization claims shall lose their claims.

In this case, it is reasonable in view of the above provisions of the Company Reorganization Act that the Plaintiff lost its claim due to the Plaintiff’s failure to report the above loan claim, which is a reorganization claim, such as the original adjudication, in view of the above provisions of the Company Reorganization Act, and this is only the Plaintiff’s original damage. The so-called such as the Non-Party’s original decision does not constitute a tort against the Plaintiff. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that there exists a causal relationship between

Ultimately, the court below's determination that the non-party's so-called "non-party's liability for damages to the defendant constitutes a tort cannot be exempted from criticism that misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Company Reorganization Act and the tort liability. Therefore, the argument that

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)