The fact that there was a delegation of collection of a claim to the reorganization of a company in accordance with Article 7 of the Act on Special Measures for the Loans in Arrears by Financial Institutions, it cannot be said that there was a reason to abolish the company reorganization procedure for the reorganization company.

It cannot be said that there was a delegation of collection of claims to the reorganization company in accordance with Article 7 of this Act, and that there was a reason to abolish the company reorganization procedure to the reorganization company.

Article 7-3 of the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears by Financial Institutions and Article 7-2 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for Loans in Arrears

Korea Assets Management Corporation

Incheon Support Decision 65m7 delivered on June 28, 1971

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal of the special appellant shall be examined.

According to the original decision, since the decision of the court below was made on August 21, 1965 and the approval of reorganization plan was made on December 26, 196, the court below rejected the application under Article 7-3 of the Act on Special Measures for the Elimination of Loans in Arrears of Financial Institutions by Hanil Bank, a creditor of the reorganization company, under Article 7 of the Act on Special Measures for the Elimination of Bank Supervision of Financial Institutions, for the reason that he delegated his claim against the reorganization company to a special appellant as of May 24, 1969, under Article 7-3 of the above Act on the ground that the special appellant seeking the abolition of the application for reorganization to the above reorganization company under Article 7-3 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Elimination of Companies and the proviso of Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the same Act, and it cannot be said that the above application was not a reason to abolish the reorganization procedure of all of the reorganization company, and the decision of the court below did not clearly dismiss the application under the proviso of Paragraph 2 of the above Article 7 of the Act.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)