[2] The validity of the judgment rendered by the court after proceeding the litigation procedures as they were in the state where the bankruptcy trustee or the other party's lawsuit was not pending without knowing the bankruptcy of either party during the lawsuit

When a party is declared bankrupt, the litigation procedures relating to the bankrupt foundation shall be suspended (Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Act), and any bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor, cannot be exercised without resorting to bankruptcy procedures (Articles 423 and 424 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and when the debtor is declared bankrupt while the lawsuit concerning the bankruptcy claim is pending, the litigation procedures shall be suspended, and the bankruptcy creditor shall report his/her claim to the court having the jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case, as prescribed by the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. In the course of the claim investigation, if the claim is declared bankrupt as the same as the reported claim has no objection to the bankruptcy claim, and if the bankruptcy creditor intends to seek the confirmation of the right to the bankruptcy claim in the course of claim investigation, all of the objectors shall take over the lawsuit pending as the other party and revise the purport of the claim into a final lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da26279, Jul. 23, 199; 209Da3949

Meanwhile, in a case where a bankruptcy was declared against either party while a lawsuit was pending, but the court rendered a judgment by proceeding with the litigation without knowing the fact that the bankruptcy was declared, the judgment is erroneous in the same manner as the case where a legitimate person who may be involved in the lawsuit was tried and sentenced to a trial in a state where legal litigation cannot be conducted, and thus, the judgment was rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da8971, Dec. 28, 199; 201Da56057, Oct. 27, 2011).

According to the records, as the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought the payment of damages of KRW 40 million and interest interest thereon against the UN (hereinafter “NE”) by the bankrupt corporation, Inc. prior to the completion of the lawsuit. The Plaintiff, as a counterclaim, is seeking the payment of interest for advance payment of KRW 7,541,942 and the delivery of the goods as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The Plaintiff’s claim and the counterclaim by the Suwon District Court No. 2012Hahap5, Jun. 5, 2012, which was the date of the closing of the proceedings of the court below, was declared bankrupt against the UN. The court of the court below, without knowing the fact that the lawsuit was declared bankrupt before the date of the closing of the proceedings, proceeded with the legal proceedings as they were without knowing the fact that the lawsuit was declared bankrupt, and then closed on September 7, 2012, which was the fourth date of the proceedings, and subsequently accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and the counterclaim by each of the plaintiff on September 21, 2012.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen earlier, which is examined and sentenced by a legitimate attorney who will take over the proceedings due to the declaration of bankruptcy of the United Nations.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we reverse the part of the judgment below against entertainment and remand the part of the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)