1. Where a person, other than the reorganization company, raises an objection to reorganization claims reported within the prescribed period due to the commencement order of corporate reorganization procedures under the Company Reorganization Act, a person, a right holder to such reorganization claims, who intends to participate in reorganization procedures, shall file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of such rights against such person within one month from the date of investigation of such rights, and such lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims shall constitute ordinary litigation for confirmation. However, in general, the existence of a claim for performance becomes final and conclusive when a judgment admitting a lawsuit seeking performance as a lawsuit demanding the performance order against the defendant and a lawsuit demanding performance order against the defendant becomes final and conclusive, and even in the case of a lawsuit seeking performance, it shall be deemed that the period of discharge has been complied with even if the lawsuit seeking performance is filed, it does not go against the purport of a limitation on the period of release in the lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims to clarify the basis of the preparation of the reorganization plan by prompt determination of the scope of the small property of the reorganization company. Thus, even if the right holder files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of reorganization claims within the period of discharge, if any special circumstance exists.

In this regard, on February 13, 1993, the court below confirmed that the order to commence a company reorganization procedure against the Young Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Adjustment Co., Ltd.") was issued by the Seoul District Court on February 13, 1993, the defendant was appointed as the administrator, and on April 13 of the same year, the date of investigation as to the plaintiff's report on the reorganization claim with the claim of this case, the plaintiff's objection was filed against the defendant on May 13 of the same year, which was less than one month from the above investigation date, and the plaintiff won the lawsuit against the defendant on the claim of the promissorysory Notes Co., Ltd., before the court of first instance, the court below decided that the lawsuit of this case was a legitimate lawsuit filed within the period of release, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the period of release of the lawsuit for confirmation of the reorganization claim, such as the theory of lawsuit, which is without merit.

2. In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the promissory note of this case was issued by the liquidation company to the non-party tourr corporation for the purpose of checking, and that the representative director of the company knew that the promissory note of this case was individually withdrawn and distributed, is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts like the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)