A. On December 16, 1996, the Plaintiff and the Hansung Comprehensive Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Commercial Financial Co., Ltd.”) entered into a transaction agreement with the Plaintiff to purchase promissory notes issued at discount by treating it as the Guarantee CP (i.e., the Promissory Notes) on the part of the Plaintiff, with the period of five billion won from December 16, 1996, from December 16, 1996 to June 16, 1996 (the automatic extension at the time of the division of the period), discount interest, and 12.33% per annum from the Han Sejong Deposit Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Commercial Financial Co., Ltd

B. Under the above agreement on December 16, 1996, the KIF purchased a promissory note with the face value of 5 billion won from the KIF on June 16, 1996, the issue date of which falls under 12.36% per annum on June 16, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "first Promissory note"), and sold at the discount rate of 12.3% per annum on the same day to the Plaintiff at the discount rate of 16.3% per annum on the same day. On June 16, 1997, the KIF issued a promissory note with the face value of 5 billion won from the KIF on June 16, 1997, the issue date of which falls under 12.36% per annum on June 16, 1997, and sold at the discount rate of 3% per annum to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. The KIB did not deliver the bill No. 1 and the bill No. 2 to the Plaintiff, and the KIB continued to keep the bill for the Plaintiff. The KIB stated that the KIB issued to the Plaintiff in relation to the bill No. 1 (Evidence No. 7) includes "Security CP". The surety column of the sales statement (Evidence No. 8) bears the name plate of the KIB and the official seal of the representative director, and the bill No. 2 states the bill No. 1 and the bill No. 2 in relation to the bill No. 2 (Evidence No. 1 and 2) includes the name plate of the KIB and the official seal of the representative director. The bill No. 1 and the bill No. 2 delivered to the Plaintiff in relation to the bill No. 2.

D. On October 24, 1997, an application was made for the commencement of a company reorganization procedure with the Seoul District Court 97Ma8358 on October 24, 1997, and on November 5, 1997, the above court rendered a decision on the preservation and disposal of the property, and on April 15, 1998, the decision on the commencement of the company reorganization procedure was made on April 15, 1998. The plaintiff was exempted from 59.67% of the original by participating in the company reorganization procedure with the bill deposit and delay damages for the second bill, and was converted into investment of 22.95% of the original into equity and 17.38% of the remainder as the reorganization plan was finalized to be repaid in equal installments each year for seven years after the expiration of three years, and the amount equivalent to 22.95% of the amount of the claim for the Arabic automobile was calculated as 78,001 per share 15,000 won.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 10, 1997, the Korean Commercial Paper was ordered to suspend its business by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the authorization for business was revoked on February 17, 1998, and was declared bankrupt by the Seoul District Court on September 18, 1998. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the total amount of the above claims reported by the Plaintiff on September 18, 1998 in the bankruptcy procedure for the Korean Commercial Paper as bankruptcy claim from December 17, 1997 to September 17, 1998, which is five billion won of the claim due to the guarantee of the second bill and the following day after the maturity. However, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the interest claim due to the overdue loan in the trust account under the Plaintiff bank from December 17, 1997 to September 17, 198, which is the date of the declaration of bankruptcy.

2. First, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below accepted the defendant's assertion that the payment in the Korean style was invalid because it guaranteed the plaintiff the obligation on the bill of Korean style car, while selling the bill No. 1 and the bill No. 2 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff knew or could have known of the declaration of intention not to do so. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and determination of law in relation to the guarantee of the Korean style gold are just and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, the scope of the power of representation, and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intention not to do so, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. In addition, in light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion based on the right to set aside under the provisions of Article 64 subparagraph 1 or 5 of the Bankruptcy Act is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. The court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case was based on the guaranteed obligation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1.

A. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s conversion of 1,170,026,39 won to 22.95% of the amount of the claim in the company reorganization procedure for the Abandoned Automobile into equity investment; (b) the reorganization procedure for the Abandoned Automobile was terminated on February 16, 200; (c) the above company’s shares are traded normally without listed on the Korea Stock Exchange; (d) the Plaintiff held 78,001 shares of the Abandoned Automobile Stock Company as it is; and (e) the Plaintiff, as of July 16, 2001, held 9,200 shares of the Abandoned Automobile Stock Exchange as of July 16, 201; and (e) even if the Plaintiff did not sell shares of the Abandoned Automobile Stock Company acquired through a debt-equity swap, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s shares were disposed of within 70,000 won of the shares acquired through a debt-equity investment without being sold within the 7070-equity shares.

B. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below.

Article 19 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that, in cases where a number of debtors are liable to discharge their entire obligations, if all, several or one of them are declared bankrupt, the creditors may exercise their rights as bankruptcy creditors on the total amount of their claims that they hold at the time bankruptcy is declared bankrupt, and Article 20 provides that "if the guarantor is declared bankrupt, the creditors may exercise their rights as bankruptcy creditors on the total amount of their claims that they hold at the time that bankruptcy is declared bankrupt, the creditors may exercise their rights as bankruptcy creditors on the total amount of the claims that they hold at the time that the bankruptcy is declared." Thus, even if a bankruptcy creditor has received a partial repayment from another debtor, or any repayment or distribution has been made by participating in the company reorganization or bankruptcy procedure for another debtor after the bankruptcy is declared bankrupt, it does not result in a decrease in the total amount of the claims that the creditors are not satisfied with the total amount of claims, so the creditors are still entitled to participate in the bankruptcy procedure with the full amount of claims at the time that the bankruptcy is declared (see each Decision 2001Da64035, Jan. 11, 2002).

Therefore, on September 18, 1998, the date when the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt of the Korean-style gold, the Plaintiff was able to participate in the bankruptcy procedure for the Korean-style gold. If the Plaintiff obtained satisfaction of some claims through conversion of investment as stated in the judgment below in the company reorganization procedure for the Korean-style gold motor vehicle, the Plaintiff did not cause a decrease in the amount of the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy claim in the bankruptcy procedure for the Korean-style gold.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 19 and 20 of the Bankruptcy Act, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, since the court below judged as above in different opinions from the party members, although it was judged as above before or after the declaration of bankruptcy of the kind of Korean currency bonds that the plaintiff obtained a partial satisfaction of claims through debt-equity swap in the course of the company reorganization procedure for a car in a car in the Asia. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 including the purport of pointing this out is justified.

4. Next, we examine the second ground for appeal by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the interest rate in arrears should be applied to the plaintiff bank's interest rate in arrears or the interest rate in arrears should be applied to the guarantee obligation in the Han chip, but the court below held that the interest rate in delay to be applied to the guarantee obligation in the Han chip is the statutory interest rate in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act applicable to the obligations in the payment obligation in the Han chip, the principal debtor. Such decision of

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff concerning the extinguishment of obligation of KRW 717,609,200 due to debt-equity swap is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's appeal and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)