logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1994. 9. 22.자 94마506 결정
[회사정리개시][공1994.11.1.(979),2788]
Main Issues

The meaning of "processing net" under Article 38 (5) of the Company Reorganization Act

Summary of Decision

The term "processing network" in subparagraph 5 of Article 38 of the Company Reorganization Act means the possibility that a company may independently conduct industrial activities by continuously obtaining profits from its management in accordance with the reorganization plan and thereby repaying its liabilities and discharging its liabilities.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 38 subparagraph 5 of the Company Reorganization Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Order 92Ma468 Dated November 2, 1992 (Gong1993Sang65) and Order 94Ma507 Dated September 22, 1994 (Dong)

Re-appellant

Song-Unki Inc.

The order of the court below

Seoul High Court Order 93Ra71 Dated February 17, 1994

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 38, subparagraph 5 of the Company Reorganization Act refers to the possibility that a company may conduct its industrial activities by continuously obtaining profits from its management according to the reorganization plan, thereby repaying its debts, thereby avoiding the financial failure.

In light of the records, the court below's decision of the court of first instance that held that the re-appellant's company has no possibility of reorganization, such as repayment of debt due to its profit-making profit, and that it constitutes "when there is no possibility of reorganization" under Article 38 subparagraph 5 of the Company Reorganization Act, and maintained the decision of the court of first instance that dismissed the application for commencement of reorganization proceedings for the re-appellant company, and there is no error of law such as the theory of litigation, incomplete hearing, or violation of law of law or logic or experience.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow