[정리채권확정의소][집51(1)민,15;공2003.4.1.(175),779]
Whether the new period or the subsequent completion of an action is allowed for the period of release from a lawsuit for the confirmation of a reorganization claim (negative)
The purport of Article 147 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, which provides that "a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims shall be instituted within one month from the date on which the right is investigated," is to promptly settle the debt to be borne by the reorganization company and thereby promptly proceed with the reorganization procedures, such as the formulation of the reorganization plan, thereby stabilizing the relationship of rights. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the court cannot extend or reduce the period, and as such, the period for filing a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claims is not an peremptory period, and thus, even if the parties could not observe the period due to any cause not attributable to them, the institution of the lawsuit cannot be subsequently supplemented.
Articles 143 and 147(2) of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 160(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
(Attorney Hong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The receiver of the reorganization company and the defendant (Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 2002Na1728 delivered on August 21, 2002
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. The purport of Article 147 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, which provides that "a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim shall be instituted within one month from the date on which the right is investigated," is to promptly settle the debt owed by the reorganization company and to promptly proceed with the company reorganization procedure such as the formulation of the reorganization plan, thereby stabilizing the legal relationship rapidly. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the court may not extend or reduce the period, and as such, the period for filing a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim cannot be the peremptory period, so even if the parties could not observe the period due to any cause not attributable to them, the institution of the lawsuit cannot be subsequently supplemented.
In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim of this case is unlawful as it was filed on March 16, 2001 after one month from January 27, 2001 from the investigation of the right to claim reorganization claim, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Meanwhile, the argument that the lawsuit in this case is a reorganization claim, but not entered in the reorganization creditor list, has the nature of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of a claim for ex post facto reimbursement against the plaintiff's right to claim reimbursement against the friendship Co., Ltd., the plaintiff cannot be a new argument from the final appeal and cannot be a ground for appeal, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff reported and finalized a claim for ex post facto reimbursement against the friendship Co.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff.
Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)