부인
1. The instant lawsuit pertains to the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures on September 14, 2015 in the Changwon District Court 2015 Gohap1005 rehabilitation cases.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, A, a corporation, upon receiving a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures from the Changwon District Court 2015 Ma1005 on March 13, 2015, and the representative director B is deemed the administrator; on June 23, 2015, A filed a lawsuit of denial in this case against the Defendant on January 8, 2015, to the effect that A denies the contract for the transfer and takeover of the claim against the Defendant to transfer KRW 142,231,243, the sales claim against Taeyang District Court (2015 Ma1005) was transferred to the Defendant; on September 14, 2015, the Changwon District Court (2015 Ma1005) decided to discontinue rehabilitation procedures against A on September 14, 2015, and the said decision can be acknowledged the fact that it became final and conclusive at that time.
The right to set aside under Article 100 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”) is a special system under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which is recognized to maintain and restore the company’s business by unfairly disposing of the company’s assets prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and is entitled to exercise only the custodian on the premise that the rehabilitation procedures proceed. Thus, even if the right to set aside is exercised during the rehabilitation procedures, when the rehabilitation procedures are terminated prior to the recovery of the company’s assets to the company, the right to seek the return of the assets or to seek reimbursement of the value thereof shall also be deemed extinguished as the effect of exercising the right to set aside. Therefore, where a decision to terminate the rehabilitation procedures becomes final and conclusive during the course of the claim’s continuation due to the exercise of the right to set aside or the right to set aside, at the same time, the right related to the relevant
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da30253 Decided October 13, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da59307 Decided October 12, 2006). As seen earlier, while the instant lawsuit is pending, the rehabilitation debtor on September 14, 2015.