[2] The purport and meaning of the principle of equality of composition conditions

[3] Whether the resolution of the creditors meeting against the principle of equality of composition becomes a ground for non-authorization of composition (affirmative with qualification)

[4] The case holding that the condition of composition is contrary to the principle of equality of composition conditions, in case where the construction mutual aid association has determined the condition of composition considerably favorable in terms of the time of repayment and interest rate compared to the composition claims of other financial institutions without security rights, even though it clearly stated that the pledge against the composition applicant's investment certificate which was established as a collateral for the composition claim against the composition applicant was reserved, on the premise that the above union waives the right to separation of composition

[2] Article 276 of the Bankruptcy Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 53 (2) of the Composition Act, provides that "the conditions of compulsory composition shall be equal among bankruptcy creditors." This is a provision to prevent infringement by majority of the interests of minority opposing creditors who have consented to composition. The terms and conditions of composition referred to in this context mean that all composition creditors are treated equally in the form of payment rate, time of repayment, establishment of security and provision of interest, and that the equality of composition means that all composition creditors are treated equally in the form of formal calculation, not that they are treated equally in the form of fair and equitable calculation, but that they are treated equally in the form of fair and equitable manner so as not to go against the concept of fairness and fairness. Therefore, it is allowed to give differential discrimination within a reasonable scope depending on the characteristics of composition claims, such as preferential treatment to small creditors. However, discrimination against the idea of fairness such as the rate of repayment or timing of repayment

[3] The resolution of the creditors meeting against the principle of equality of composition is a reason for non-authorization of Article 55 subparagraph 1 of the Composition Act only when the deficiency can not be corrected.

[4] The case holding that the condition of composition is contrary to the principle of equality of composition condition, in a case where the construction mutual aid association, even though it clearly stated that the right of pledge was reserved against the composition applicant's investment certificate which was established as a collateral for the composition applicant's credit, and the above association, on the premise that the right of separation was waived, determines the time of repayment and interest rate considerably favorable compared to the claims of other financial institutions without a security interest, in excess of the value of the security

In order to promote the rapid progress of composition procedures, Article 7(1) of the Composition Act provides that only an immediate appeal may be filed in cases where there are special provisions in this Act by means of objection to the decision on composition procedures. Article 11(2) of the Composition Act provides that the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to composition procedures. Article 57(1) of the Composition Act permits an immediate appeal against the decision on approval of composition, but does not provide for the methods of objection to the decision on approval of composition. In full view of these relevant provisions, the decision on approval of composition can be re-appeal pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Composition Act, and there is no room for a special appeal pursuant to Article 420 of the Composition Act that is permitted only in cases where an appeal against the decision on approval of composition is not filed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 97Da1871, Dec. 23, 1998).

2. The grounds for reappeal are examined.

Article 276 of the Composition Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 53 (2) of the Composition Act, provides that "the conditions of compulsory composition shall be equal among bankruptcy creditors." This is a provision to prevent infringement by majority of the interests of minority opposing creditors who consent to composition. The equality of the conditions of composition referred to in this context means that all composition creditors are treated equally in the form of payment rate, time of repayment, establishment of security and provision of interest, etc., not treating all composition creditors equally in the form of formal calculation, but treating them equally so that it does not go against the concept of fairness and fairness (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da22671, Oct. 27, 1989). Thus, it is allowed to set a reasonable discrimination within the scope of reasonable scope according to the characteristics of composition claims, but discrimination against the idea of fairness, such as the rate of repayment or time of repayment without reasonable grounds, cannot be permitted, and a resolution contrary to the principle of equality is made only when the meeting of creditors fails to meet the requirement of equality.

원심결정의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 1997. 12. 14. 현재 신청인에 대한 채권의 내역을 보면, 재항고인은 원금 842,293,315원의 보증 대위변제 구상금채권을 가지고 있으나 그에 대한 아무런 담보권이 없는 반면, 신청외 건설공제조합은 원금 11,272,019,936원의 채권(대출금채권 금 2,121,000,000원, 보증 대위변제 구상금채권 9,151,019,936원)을 가지고 있으면서 그 채무에 대한 담보로 신청인 소유의 출자증권 500구좌(1구좌 금액 100만 원)에 질권을 설정받은 사실, 화의법원이 1998. 4. 20. 채권자집회의 의결을 거쳐 인가한 화의조건에서는, ① 재항고인과 같이 담보권이 없는 금융기관의 화의채권에 대하여는 그 각 원금을 2002년부터 2006년까지 5년간 균등하게 분할하여 변제하되 경과 이자(화의개시결정일 전일까지의 이자, 이하 같다)와 발생 이자(화의개시일부터 장차 발생하는 이자, 이하 같다)는 연리 8%로 계산하여 2005년 30%, 2006년 70%를 지급하고, ② 담보권 있는 금융기관에 대한 담보 범위를 초과하는 화의채권에 대하여는 그 원금을 2001년부터 2005년까지 5년간 균등하게 분할하여 변제하고, 경과 이자는 연체이율(당해 금융기관에서 채무 연체시 적용하기로 정하고 있는 변동금리)로, 발생 이자는 연 10%로 하되 2005년 30%, 2006년 70%를 8년 거치 2년간 점증적으로 분할하여 지급하며, ③ 건설공제조합의 화의채권에 대하여는, 확정 채권의 원금은 1999년부터 2003년까지 5년간 분할하여 변제하되 1999년 5%, 2000년 10%, 2001년부터 2003년까지 3년간 잔여 85%를 균등하게 분할하여 변제하고, 장래 발생 가능 채권에 대하여는 채권 확정일 기준 2년 거치 5년간 분할 변제하며, 경과 이자와 발생 이자는 연리 10%로 지급하되 2003년 30%, 2004년 70%를 지급하고, 건설공제조합과 업무거래를 재개하기 위하여는 기존에 발생한 구상금채권과 장래 확정될 구상금채권 및 이에 대한 조합 약정이자(연체이자)에 대하여는 업무거래 전에 일시에 상환하도록 정한 사실, 1998. 4. 20. 개최된 채권자집회에는 의결권을 행사할 수 있는 화의채권자 222명 중 203명이 출석하여 201명이 찬성함으로써 99% 가량이 동의하였고, 의결권을 행사할 수 있는 화의채권액 약 1,556억 원 중 찬성 금액 약 1,378억 원으로 87% 가량이 동의함으로써 위 화의조건은 가결되었으며, 그 당시 재항고인은 위 화의조건에 반대한 반면 건설공제조합은 이에 찬성한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 건설공제조합의 화의채권이 항고인의 화의채권에 비하여, ① 확정 채권의 경우 원금은 변제시기가, 이자는 이자율과 변제시기가 유리하고, ②신청인이 건설공제조합과 업무를 재개하는 경우에는 모든 채권을 변제하게 함으로써 변제시기의 면에서 유리한데, 한편 ① 건설공제조합은 위 출자증권에 대한 별제권의 행사를 포기하고 화의절차에 참여한 점, ② 신청인과 같은 건설회사가 건설업을 영위하는데 위 출자증권의 보유가 필수적인 점, ③ 건설공제조합의 화의채권이 항고인의 화의채권에 비하여 10배 이상의 다액인 점 등을 참작하면 건설공제조합의 화의채권을 위와 같이 우대한 것은 합리적인 범위 내의 차별이라고 보인다는 이유로 위 화의조건이 화의채권자 평등의 원칙을 위반하였다고 할 수 없다고 판단하였다.

However, according to the records, when a construction mutual aid association presents its opinion on the terms and conditions of composition revised on December 23, 1997, it is merely a 11,272,019,936 won of the above determined amount of claims as a composition bond and thus the voting rights are granted, it is explicitly stated that the construction mutual aid association asserts separate voting rights on the amount of future claims and did not waive the right to separation of 500 shares. Nevertheless, the composition court considers the total amount of claims of the construction mutual aid association as included in composition bonds and reported the total amount of the claims to the creditors meeting as stated in the report amount (69,51,481,166 won). However, even after the resolution of the meeting of creditors, the construction mutual aid association still fails to obtain a confirmation on the status of security rights that it has a pledge on the above 500 share of the fixed amount of claims under the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and if so, it can not be seen that the construction mutual aid association still has a specific condition of pledge on the above construction bonds.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the time of repayment and interest rate for the portion exceeding the value of the above investment certificate, which is the collateral, under the premise that the construction mutual aid association waived the above right to separation, is not contrary to the principle of equality of composition condition. Therefore, there is an error of law of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or a law scenario as to the principle of equality of composition condition due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a reason to point out this point.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of re-appeal, the order of the court below is reversed, but the revocation of the decision to authorize composition of this case is sufficient for a party member to directly decide. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)