(a) The legal nature of damages for delay caused by delay of the monetary obligation and the period of extinctive prescription;

B. Whether Article 240 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act is unconstitutional

A. Damages for delay arising from delay of a pecuniary obligation are not an interest in the amount of damages. Since its nature is not a claim for a period not exceeding one year under Article 163 subparagraph 1-1 of the Civil Code, it is not an object of short-term extinctive prescription for three years.

B. The provisions of Article 240(2) of the Company Reorganization Act are reasonable provisions that are consistent with the purpose of the Company Reorganization Act to coordinate the interests of creditors, stockholders and other interested persons and to strive for the reorganization and reorganization of the business with respect to the stock company which faces bankruptcy due to financial difficulties but is likely to make rehabilitation possible, and are not in violation of Articles 23, 11(1), 10, and 37(2) of the Constitution.

(a) Subparagraph 1(b) of Article 163 of the Civil Act; Article 240(2) of the Company Reorganization Act; Articles 10, 11(1), 23, and 37(2) of the Constitution;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da17092 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 480), Supreme Court Decision 93Da20139 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2733)

Attorney Choi Jin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 7 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 94Na4905 delivered on November 3, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Damages for delay arising from delay of a pecuniary obligation are not an interest in the amount of damages, and it is not an obligation to be provided for a period not exceeding one year under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and thus, it is not subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da214, Feb. 28, 1989).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision of the above Civil Code or damages for delay.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendants' liability for delay was unfairly extended by failing to notify the defendants of the fact that the defendants' liability for delay was not extended due to the plaintiff's neglect of notification, on the ground that the defendants' liability for delay damages was not extended due to the plaintiff's neglect of notification. The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendants' liability for delay damages was unfairly extended by failing to notify the defendants of the fact that the plaintiff's subrogation was made by subrogation to the non-party company and the non-party company was a reorganization creditor against the non-party company, and the plaintiff was present at the meeting of interested parties for the examination and resolution of reorganization programs together with Defendant 8, the administrator of the non-party company.

In light of relevant evidence and records, all of the process of the process of finding evidence and the process of leading to the judgment by the court below in finding the above facts are acceptable. Unlike the judgment below, there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles as to actual presumption of facts or good faith due to violation of rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit,

3. Article 240(2) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the reorganization plan shall not affect the rights of the reorganization creditor against the guarantor of the reorganization company.

Therefore, even if the reorganization creditor's right to the reorganization company which is the principal debtor is changed by the reorganization plan, even if the guaranteed obligation of the guarantor of the reorganization company is not affected by the reorganization plan, and the subsidiary principle of the guaranteed obligation is modified and disadvantageous to the guarantor of the reorganization company, the above provision is a reasonable provision in accordance with the purpose of the Company Reorganization Act to coordinate the interests of creditors, shareholders and other interested persons and to promote the reorganization and reorganization of the business with respect to the stock company which faces bankruptcy due to financial deficiencies but is likely to be corrected, and thus, it does not violate Articles 23, 11(1), 10, and 37(2) of the Constitution.

There is no reason for all arguments.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)