2013da87017 Confirmation of claims for payment of deposit money

2013Da87024 (Counterclaim) Confirmation of claim for payment of deposit money

Korean Bank, Inc.

A Stock Company

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na9187, 9194 (Counterclaim), October 17, 2013

June 23, 2016

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the main claim and counterclaim shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Ratification of an invalidation is a single act with the knowledge of the invalidation and the effect of such an act to vest in the person in question. As such, the ratification of an invalidation may be deemed impliedly ratified in a case where there are circumstances to deem that the principal sufficiently understood the legal status faced by the act and that the outcome of the act belongs to himself/herself based on the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da83199, Feb. 10, 201).

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the issuing of promissory notes with a sight-paid amounting to KRW 2.1 billion at par value on August 20, 1994, which was issued by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”) prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, was ratified solely based on the facts stated in its reasoning. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment on this part is difficult to accept.

(1) The reasoning of the judgment below, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as partially accepted by the court below, and the following circumstances revealed by the records, i.e., ① the company reorganization plan for the defendant was commenced around 1991 and approved by the Suwon District Court on March 2, 1992. At the time of the issuance of the bill of this case, the administrator of the reorganization company was J, and later changed to K, ② after K was appointed as the administrator, K did not use the bill of this case as a collateral security deposit (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-sale contract of this case"), and even after the completion of the company reorganization procedure, K did not use the bill of this case as a collateral security deposit of this case until the expiration of the company reorganization procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-sale auction contract of this case"), and the defendant did not use the bill of this case as a collateral security deposit of this case after the completion of the company reorganization procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-sale auction contract of this case"), and the defendant did not use the bill of this case as a discharge bond of this case.

(2) Nevertheless, the court below held that it is difficult to see that the defendant ratified the issuance of the bill of this case which is null and void, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on implied ratification of the invalid act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, the court below determined that, based on the circumstances in its reasoning, the claim of this case cannot be deemed as included in the claim of this case as the claim of this case, and even if the claim of this case was included in the claim of this case as the claim of this case as the claim of this case as the claim of this case as the claim of this case was based on the claim of this case, it cannot be deemed that the claim of this case as the claim of this case as the claim of this case was

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) First, each of the plaintiff and the defendant's legal representatives stated that the bill of this case was issued for the payment of the "contract deposit" on the first day of pleading of the court below, and thus the confession was established at court.

(2) In addition, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, and the following circumstances revealed by the records, namely, ① the defendant, among the contracts related to the contract in this case, stated that the contract in this case was entered into immediately before the issuance of the bill, “the defendant shall faithfully perform this contract, and shall submit a promissory note or performance guarantee bond to the U.S. nuclear fuel oil (the trade name before the incorporation into the F.S. nuclear fuel chemical in this case) to the U.S. nuclear fuel (the trade name before the incorporation into the F.S. nuclear fuel chemical in this case) in order to secure this, and ② The F.S. chemical in this case was deposited as stated in the judgment of the court below, and received 1.8 billion won dividends from the bill in this case as the performance guarantee purpose of the F.S. nuclear fuel processing contract in this case with the defendant, and the representative director who stated that the performance guarantee bond in this case was issued after the completion of the company reorganization procedure.”

(3) Meanwhile, according to the instant senior mortgage contract, the obligation of promissory notes, etc. to be borne by the Defendant with respect to gold chemical within the scope of KRW 1.8 billion shall also be included in the secured obligation of the instant senior mortgage.

(4) In full view of the above circumstances, it appears that the claim of this case was included in the claim of this case as the claim of this case’s senior collateral, and the Fran Petroleum Chemical appears to be legally entitled to exercise the bill of this case issued as the claim of this case’s performance bond of this case’s clinical Processing Contract as the contract of this case is terminated at the time of the instant distribution, etc., barring any special circumstance that should return the bill of this case to the Defendant. Thus, the claim of this case’s senior collateral exists.

(5) Nevertheless, the court below determined that the secured claim of this case cannot be deemed to include the bill claim of this case or the secured claim of this case cannot be deemed to exist. This decision is erroneous by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and probative value of the disposal document, contract deposit, and judicial confession.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won