Whether the commencement of liquidation procedures or a petition for bankruptcy against a debtor constitutes an obstacle to enforcement (negative), and whether the substantive grounds such as the extinguishment of enforcement claims constitute a legitimate ground for appeal against an assignment order (negative)

Only because the liquidation procedures for the debtor are in progress or a petition for bankruptcy is filed, it cannot be deemed an obstacle to the execution, and the substantive reasons such as the extinguishment of the execution bond by repayment, offset, etc. do not constitute a legitimate reason for appeal.

Article 536 of the Commercial Act, Articles 561 and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 94Ma1681, 1682 dated November 10, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 36) Supreme Court Order 95Ma601, 602 dated November 25, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 42) Supreme Court Order 97Ma360, 361 dated April 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1612)

[Plaintiff-Appellee]

Seoul District Court Order 98Ra4073, 4074 dated March 25, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the course of the liquidation procedure following dissolution of the company, the Re-Appellant's claim that the assignment order of this case, which leads to the result of repayment only to a certain creditor, is not permissible as it is against the institutional intent of the liquidation or bankruptcy procedure that should be fair and satisfactory to all creditors. In addition, since most of the execution bonds of this case are extinguished by offsetting against creditors, the assignment order of this case, which is sought in full, cannot be deemed as an obstacle to execution solely on the ground that the liquidation procedure for the debtor is in progress or a petition for bankruptcy is filed, and the substantive reason such as the extinguishment of execution bonds by repayment or offset is not a legitimate reason for appeal (see Supreme Court Order 97Ma360, 361, Apr. 28, 1997). Thus, the above claim cannot be accepted as any part of the above argument.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)