[2] The case holding that in a case where a bankruptcy creditor and a company reorganization creditor who received part of the interest and principal prior to commencement of the bankruptcy procedure for the principal debtor received repayment in excess of the remaining principal in the company reorganization procedure for the principal debtor, the bankruptcy creditor and the company reorganization creditor cannot claim that the excess amount should be appropriated first for the interest after the commencement of the bankruptcy procedure for the principal debtor, since the amount of excess received is a financial resource to be recovered from the bankruptcy estate and appropriated first for the repayment

A. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the agreement was partially appropriated for dividends of 20 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, i.e., the effect of the general bankruptcy claim on the principal and interest of 20 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, i.e., the effect of the extinguishment of the general bankruptcy claim on the principal and interest of 30 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, i.e., the bankrupt party, as well as the principal and interest of 20 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, 30 billion won in the order of 20 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, 472, 282, 608 won in the bankruptcy procedure, which is the payment guarantee of the bonds of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant 40 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, 40 billion won in the total of 30 billion won in the bankruptcy procedure, 200 won in the bankruptcy claim of 30 billion won in the bankruptcy claim of 40 billion won in the same case, and 380 billion won in the bankruptcy claim of the general 960.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of dividend in the bankruptcy procedure and the satisfaction of payment under the Civil Act as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Yangyang-do was entitled to payment exceeding its own credit amount in the company reorganization procedure for Kudong Construction, the principal debtor, and that the excess payment incurred therefrom is not for the original debtor himself, but for the bankrupt debtor who is the guaranteed debt holder who is entitled to subrogation only through full repayment of the reorganization claim, and that Yangyang-do was temporarily received for the securities of the bankrupt debtor. In this case, if Yangyang-do had the credit amount for claiming priority payment in the bankruptcy procedure for the securities of the bankrupt debtor, the above excess amount may be appropriated for it, but unless otherwise, it shall be returned to the securities of the bankrupt debtor, and it is clear in the company reorganization plan that Yangyang-do was a part of the principal amount received in the company reorganization procedure, and since such excess payment was a financial resource to be appropriated first for the repayment of the bankruptcy claim, it cannot be claimed that Yangyang-do was appropriated first after the commencement of the bankruptcy claim, not for the general bankruptcy claim.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 240 (2) of the former Company Reorganization Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, even if the Dongyang-do has received a partial distribution of the bankruptcy claim in the bankruptcy procedure of Dongyang-dong securities as guarantor, it may participate in the reorganization procedure as a whole of the reorganization claim of this case, which is the entire amount of the reorganization claim of this case, which is the whole amount of the reorganization claim of 5 billion won in Kudong-dong Construction, which is the whole amount of the bonds of this case, which is the whole amount of the bonds of this case, which is the principal debtor, unless it has obtained satisfaction with the whole amount of the reorganization claim of 5 billion won in Kudong-dong Construction, but the scope of the bonds of this case, which can be actually paid in the company reorganization procedure, may be repaid within the scope of 2,286,976,519 won, which is the balance remaining after receiving the dividends in the bankruptcy procedure of Dongdong-dong Construction, among the principal of this case's bonds of this case, and even if Dongyang-dong

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the so-called existing principle under Article 108 of the former Company Reorganization Act and Article 19 of the former Bankruptcy Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Meanwhile, even though the amount of the principal and interest on the corporate bonds of Yangyang-do, which were the time of the company reorganization procedure for the Kudong Construction, was KRW 5,276,531,848 (principal KRW 5,000,000,000 + interest KRW 276,531,848), the court below found that the amount of the Si interest was only KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 was erroneous, but according to the records, the Seoul Central District Court decided to approve the company reorganization plan (amended) by the Seoul Central District Court around May 2003. Accordingly, as for the reorganization claims of financial institutions, including the corporate bonds of this case, the total amount of interest prior to and after the company reorganization procedure, was exempted from the total amount of interest prior to and after the company reorganization procedure. Accordingly, the court below's decision that had not been paid from the company reorganization procedure had been affected by the changed company reorganization plan to the defendant within the extent of KRW 2708,35,000,00,0,0.

2. We examine the grounds of incidental appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Defendant”)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where a third party acquired unjust enrichment from a beneficiary, the court below held that the plaintiff can only seek the return of the unjust enrichment from the beneficiary's "a third party in bad faith who acquired the object of such profit without compensation" (Article 747 (2) of the Civil Act). The plaintiff paid the acquisition price of assets according to a contract on January 24, 2006 and received the bonds related to the company bonds of this case and the above amount of KRW 52,036,503 from Dongyang-do, and it cannot be viewed as a person who acquired the unjust enrichment without compensation. Further, since it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the legal ground at the time of receiving the above money from Yangyang-do, it cannot be viewed as a subsequent purchaser of bad faith, the defendant's primary argument that the plaintiff sought the return of the unjust enrichment against the plaintiff who acquired the unjust enrichment is without merit, and there is no evidence to prove that it constitutes a relationship with the defendant's securities.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)