2. The appellant 2 and the mining industry corporation shall be dismissed, respectively;

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Seoul Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Adjustment Co., Ltd.”) is a company aimed at manufacturing main and steel products, etc., which was decided to commence corporate reorganization procedures in the lower court on August 31, 200, and was approved on February 5, 2001.

B. However, at the time of the decision to authorize the reorganization program, the appeal, which was to invest KRW 4 billion in the reorganization company (hereinafter “mining unemployment”), had difficulty in implementing the reorganization program due to the withdrawal of investment intent, and the principal of this case promoted rehabilitation through the sale of the company.

C. On January 12, 2005, the principal of the case entered into a contract for acquisition of the company with the consortiums-KDBC Corporate Restructuring Association, and on January 11, 2005, submitted a plan for modification of the reorganization plan, which reflects these contents, to the court below. On January 17, 2005, the court below decided to authorize the revised plan (hereinafter “instant modification plan”) which was approved on January 17, 2005 (hereinafter “instant authorization decision”).

E. The appellant is a public interest obligee seeking a refund of part of the money invested in the reorganization company as above.

F. The appellant 2 and the Miningjin Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Miningjin Industry”) are reorganization creditors, and the amount of the reorganization claim by the appellant 2 is KRW 3,438,217,956, and the amount of the mining claim by the appellant 85,00,000, the amount of the reorganization claim by the appellant is the amount equivalent to 21% of the total amount of the reorganization claim and the voting right by the reorganization creditor.

2. Judgment on the appeal filed by the appellant for the mineral rental business

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

Since mining unemployment, the appellant, provided 1.8 billion won to the reorganization company for the rehabilitation of the reorganization company as a condition of conversion into investment, was used as operating funds, but has not been converted into investment, the appellant has the right to be paid preferentially from the reorganization company as a priority creditor.

However, in the amendment plan of this case, the above 1.8 billion won of the Appellant's claim to return the above 1.81 million won of the above Appellant's claim to be succeeded to shall be classified into "public-interest claim to be succeeded to by the underwriter", and "the above amount shall be repaid in accordance with the agreement between the underwriter and the above Appellant." The above amendment plan of this case was unreasonably infringed upon the above Appellant's right as a public-interest creditor, but the court of original judgment erred in its decision and authorized

B. Determination on the legitimacy of an appeal

The reason for appeal clearly shows that the above appellant is filing an immediate appeal against the authorization decision of this case with the status of "public-interest creditor". Thus, prior to the examination of the contents asserted in the reason for appeal, we first examine the legality of the appeal filed by the above appellant.

Article 11 of the Company Reorganization Act provides, “Any person who has an interest in a judgment on the reorganization procedure may file an immediate appeal against the judgment only where otherwise provided in this Act.” Article 237(1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides, “An immediate appeal may be filed against a decision on the part of the reorganization plan: Provided, That this shall not apply to any reorganization creditor, reorganization security holder, or stockholder who fails to report.”

Therefore, in regard to the decision of the reorganization body, a person who has interests in the trial can file an immediate appeal, and in this context, “interested interests” refers to “legal interests,” and in the end, a person who can file an immediate appeal against the decision of the reorganization body is a person whose status is generally effective and whose interest is infringed upon depending on whether the reorganization plan takes effect, and in detail, the reported reorganization creditors, security holders, stockholders, and companies correspond to them.

However, since public-interest claims under the Company Reorganization Act are required to be repaid at any time without resorting to reorganization procedures (Article 209 of the Company Reorganization Act), the reorganization plan provides for reasonable provisions concerning the amount to be repaid in the future with respect to public-interest claims (Article 216 of the same Act), even if the reorganization plan provides for reasonable provisions concerning the amount to be repaid in the future, the provisions affecting rights such as the deferment of payment period or the reduction or exemption of claims cannot be provided. However, if the matters concerning changes in rights such as the extension of payment period under the agreement with creditors are determined and the purport thereof is stated in the reorganization plan, the creditor shall be deemed to be bound (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2833, Mar. 12,

Thus, in the amendment plan of this case, the above appellant's claims are classified into "public-interest claims to be succeeded to by the transferee" and "the above amount shall be repaid in accordance with the agreement between the claimant and the above appellant", but the above appellant shall not be bound by the above alteration clause unless the principal of this case provides for the alteration of rights under the agreement with the above appellant. Thus, even if a public-interest claim exists as a result of the above appellant's assertion, the above appellant does not have any legal interest as to the authorization decision of this case, apart from the fact that there is a factual or economic interest. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the above appellant is unlawful as it is filed by a non-exclusive appellant.

3. Judgment on the appeal by the appellant 2 and the mining damage industry

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

The above appellant, who is a reorganization creditor around July 9, 2004, clearly expressed his intention to consent to the modified plan in this case against the principal of the case, but the reorganization court did not attend the meeting of the related persons on January 17, 2005 for the resolution of the modified plan in this case, and applied the proviso of Article 270(2) of the Company Reorganization Act, and approved the modified plan in this case (if the appellant objects, the modified plan in this case shall not be resolved by failing to obtain the consent of more than 2/3 of the reorganization creditors in this case). In light of the proviso of Article 270(2) of the Company Reorganization Act, in order to interpret the amended plan in this case as a supplementary provision if the intention of the reorganization creditor is unclear, the court below's approval decision in this case is unfair.

B. Determination

Article 270 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that, upon receipt of an application for change of a reorganization plan which is deemed to have an unfavorable effect on the reorganization creditors, etc., the procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of submission of the reorganization plan: Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to a person who has consented to the previous plan and fails to attend the meeting of interested persons to resolve on the reorganization plan, who has agreed to the previous plan,

However, according to the records, the appellant's consent to the reorganization plan prior to the amendment plan of this case and the fact that the appellant did not appear even after being duly served at the meeting of interested persons of this case is acknowledged. Thus, the appellant's consent to the amendment plan of this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 270 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act is deemed to have been consented to the amendment plan of this case, and the approval decision of

The above appellant asserts that the proviso of Article 270 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act should be interpreted as a supplement provision in cases where the intention of the reorganization creditor is unclear. The above appellant asserts that the court of the original instance applied the proviso of Article 270 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, even though he clearly expresses his intention to consent to the amendment plan of this case in the reply to the prior inquiry by the principal of this case on July 9, 2004.

However, in the bankruptcy procedure and the reorganization procedure in which many interested parties exist, the transparency, clarity, and speediness of the procedure are strongly required compared to the general litigation procedure, and for this purpose, all the claims declaration or the resolution of the reorganization program shall be made in accordance with the procedure and method stipulated in the Company Reorganization Act. Thus, the above appellant's expression of consent expressed to the principal of the case in a place other than the meeting of interested parties for the resolution of the modified plan shall not affect the resolution of the modified plan, so the above appellant's assertion shall not be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the appellant is unlawful and dismissed, and since the appeal by the appellant 2 and the mining-related industry is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-Smoking (Presiding Judge)