(b) Method of appeal against a court's decision on approval for the alteration of the reorganization program and its effect;

C. Whether the mutatis mutandis application of Article 235(1) of the Company Reorganization Act to the approval of the reorganization plan is required and service is not required (affirmative)

B. In the case of an amendment to a reorganization plan under Article 270 of the same Act, where an application for change of a plan which is deemed to disadvantageously affect the shareholders, etc. is filed, the provisions concerning procedures shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of submission of the reorganization plan. Therefore, although the court decides that even if it is intended to modify the plan, it would not adversely affect the shareholders, etc. even if it is decided to modify the plan, an immediate appeal may be filed pursuant to Article 237 of the same Act. Thus, even if the amendment to a harsh reorganization plan is disadvantageously affected to the shareholders, etc., if the decision of approval by the court becomes final and conclusive without immediate appeal by

C. As to the modification of the reorganization plan, the provision on the modification of the reorganization plan is applied mutatis mutandis, barring special circumstances, the authorization on the modification plan is required to be publicly announced pursuant to Article 235(1) of the Company Reorganization Act, and service is not required.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The amendment of reorganization programs under Article 202 of the Company Reorganization Act refers to the amendment of reorganization programs which are conducted at the third meeting of interested parties for the resolution of the reorganization programs, and which is conducted before the court's approval or decision is made. The amendment of reorganization programs under Article 270 of the same Act refers to the amendment of the matters prescribed by the reorganization programs after the court's approval is made for the reorganization programs. According to the records, the amendment of the reorganization programs as of May 28, 1983 is clear as it only changes the new issue portion among the approved reorganization programs on August 14, 1982, and it constitutes the amendment of the reorganization programs under Article 270 of the Company Reorganization Act.

Furthermore, in the case of an amendment to a reorganization plan under Article 270 of the above Act, where an application for change of a plan which is deemed to have an unfavorable effect on shareholders, etc. is filed, the provisions concerning procedures shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of submission of the reorganization plan (main sentence of Article 270 (2) of the above Act). Therefore, even if the amendment is made by a meeting of interested persons, the court decides that even if it is intended to revise the plan, it would not affect shareholders, etc., and if the court decides to grant authorization without following the above procedure, an immediate appeal may be filed pursuant to Article 237 of the above Act. Even if the amendment to the reorganization plan as of May 28, 1983 is disadvantageous to the plaintiff, etc. who is a cruel shareholder, it is obvious that

In this regard, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, the lack of reasons, and the violation of the reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal, by deeming the above modification of the reorganization plan as the reorganization plan under Article 270 of the Company Reorganization Act, and judged that the issuance of new shares in this case is valid.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The provisions on A, a reorganization plan, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the modification of a reorganization plan, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the decision of approval of a reorganization plan is required to be publicly notified pursuant to Article 235(1) of the Company Reorganization Act and to be served, so authorization of a reorganization plan is not required to be publicly notified and service is not required, and it is acknowledged that there was a public notice of the modification plan as of May 28, 1983.

Meanwhile, the permission to issue new shares as of February 10, 198 of this case is granted by the court in accordance with the provisions of the revised plan of May 28, 1983, and it cannot be viewed as a separate independent decision. Thus, separate public notice and service on the above permission is unnecessary.

The issue of service and public announcement of the decision on the modification of the reorganization plan other than the permission for issuance of new stocks is not required, so long as the modification plan was finalized on May 28, 1983, the validity of the issuance of new stocks of this case cannot be asserted on the ground of procedural defects.

In this regard, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, omitting judgment, or by misapprehending legal principles, such as just reasoning in determining the validity of the issuance of the new shares in this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)