2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,52,723,050 won with 6% interest per annum from November 9, 200 to the delivery date of a copy of complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination to the corresponding part of the newly asserted matters in the trial, and therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows.

2. Matters to be judged additionally;

The defendant asserts that after the commencement of reorganization proceedings, the plaintiff submitted a letter of joint performance to the defendant with respect to the certificate of guarantee issued based on a joint contract between the plaintiff and a third party. Accordingly, the guaranteed debt that the plaintiff will bear to the defendant is the total of 19,343,761,021 won, which is not related to the plaintiff's reorganization proceedings, and there is no room for application of the prohibition of offsetting under the former Company Reorganization Act. Thus, it can be offset against the deposit of this case, or the payment of the deposit of this case is reserved pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the "Regulations on the Acquisition and Management of Equity Shares" and thus cannot comply

According to each statement of evidence Nos. 9 through 16-2 (including additional number) of evidence Nos. 16-2 of the former Company Reorganization Act, it is acknowledged that the amount of the guaranteed debt borne by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by submitting a joint performance certificate to the Defendant in conducting the warranty liability for the non-party No. 1 corporation and the contract guarantee for the non-party No. 2 corporation, etc., reaches a total of 19,343,761,021 won. However, the above obligation of the Plaintiff cannot be offset against the deposit of this case pursuant to Articles 162(1) and 163 subparag. 1 of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005) since the Plaintiff was liable to the Defendant after the commencement of reorganization proceedings against the Plaintiff. In addition, the above guaranteed obligation of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s equity interest or the obligation secured by the deposit of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kim Chang-sung (Presiding Judge)