[양수금][공1988.11.15.(836),1403]
(a) Requirements for setting up against the transfer of reorganization claims and public-interest claims under the Company Reorganization Act;
(b) Legal status of the receiver of the reorganization company;
(a) In order to oppose the transfer of reorganization claims and public-interest claims under the Company Reorganization Act to the receiver or any third party, the transferor shall notify this to the receiver or consent of the receiver, and this notification shall be given in an objective state in which the receiver can know the contents thereof in accordance with the social norms;
(b) The receiver of the reorganization company is an entity of the reorganization company or a representative, and is a kind of public trustee as a manager of the so-called entity of interested persons, which consists of the reorganization company and its
A. Article 102 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 450 of the Civil Act, Article 94 of the Company Reorganization Act
B. Supreme Court Decision 73Da692 delivered on June 25, 1974
Orion Metal Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Defendant of the administrator of the public interest industry corporation
Defendant and Defendant Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Red Circuit, Counsel for defendant’s intervenor
Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4354 delivered on May 26, 1987
The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
The transferor must notify the administrator or consent to the transfer of reorganization claims and public-interest claims under the Company Reorganization Act to the administrator or a third party. This notification can be seen to have been made when the receiver is in an objective state where the receiver becomes aware of the contents of the reorganization claim and public-interest claims under the social concept. Meanwhile, the receiver is a kind of public trustee of so-called organization composed of the reorganization company or its representative, not the reorganization company or its creditor and shareholders (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da692 delivered on June 25, 1974). Thus, even though the company's business operation and property management and disposal right are exclusively transferred to the receiver under Article 53 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act, the order to commence corporate reorganization procedure does not change the former director or auditor's status, and in this case, Article 175 (1) of the same Act provides that the receiver is not present at the address of the former company without indicating the representative director of the company's address registered in Seoul, which is located in Seoul, and it cannot be seen to have reached the objective address of the former branch.
Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the above notification of assignment of claim is legitimate is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the status of administrator under the Company Reorganization Act or the requisite for setting up against the assignment of claim, and it constitutes a serious violation of law, which is recognized as contrary to justice and equity. Therefore, the argument that points
Therefore, the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)