[1] Whether it is legitimate for a rehabilitation creditor to file a lawsuit seeking the repayment of a rehabilitation claim against an objection to the rehabilitation claim after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, or to file a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of a rehabilitation claim by a rehabilitation creditor who is not pending in the lawsuit regarding the rehabilitation claim at the

[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of goods and the confirmation of rehabilitation claims against Byung after the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for Eul, the case holding that since Byung raised an objection against Byung's reported rehabilitation claims, Gap filed a final claim inspection judgment against Byung, and then filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of goods or the confirmation of rehabilitation claims, it is unlawful to file a lawsuit claiming the payment of goods or the confirmation of rehabilitation claims as above

[1] A rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in rehabilitation procedures under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) shall report a rehabilitation claim (Article 148(1)); when an objection is raised against any reported rehabilitation claim, all of the objectors as other parties may file an objection to the final claim inspection judgment with the court (Article 170(1) of the Act); and any person who is dissatisfied with the judgment may file an objection to the final claim inspection judgment (Article 171(1) of the Act). However, where a lawsuit on a rehabilitation claim is pending at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, a rehabilitation creditor shall file a report on the rehabilitation claim; and where an objection is raised against the reported rehabilitation claim, all of the objectors as other parties to the lawsuit shall take over the litigation procedures (Article 172(1) of the Act). Therefore, it is unlawful to file a lawsuit against a rehabilitation creditor after the rehabilitation procedures commence, or seek the rehabilitation claim that is not pending at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, as provided for in Articles 170 and 171 of the Act.

[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of goods price and the confirmation of rehabilitation claims against Byung after the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for Eul company was rendered, the case holding that since Byung raised an objection to the rehabilitation claim reported by Byung in the rehabilitation procedures, Byung filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of goods price and the confirmation of rehabilitation claims with Byung as the other party to Byung filed a lawsuit claiming the judgment in claim allowance proceedings, and the existence or scope of claims should be disputed according to the result of the judgment, and it is unlawful to file a lawsuit claiming the payment of goods price and the confirmation of rehabilitation claims against Byung after the decision

[1] Articles 148(1), 170(1), 171(1), and 172(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [2] Articles 148(1), 170(1), 171(1), and 172(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Co., Ltd.

Non-party to the administrator of the Debtor Treatment Chemical Corporation, a lawsuit taken over by treatment chemical company

Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Na2467 decided December 17, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Any rehabilitation creditor who intends to participate in rehabilitation procedures pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) shall report rehabilitation claims (Article 148 (1) of the Act); when an objection is raised against any reported rehabilitation claims, all objectors may file an application with the court for the final claim inspection judgment (Article 170 (1) of the Act); and any person who is dissatisfied with such judgment may file a lawsuit for objection against the final claim inspection judgment (Article 171 (1) of the Act). Provided, That where a lawsuit on rehabilitation claims is pending at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, any rehabilitation creditor shall file a report on rehabilitation claims; and where an objection is raised against any reported rehabilitation claims, all of the objectors shall take over the litigation procedures as the other party to the lawsuit (Article 172 (1) of the Act). Therefore, it is unlawful to institute a lawsuit against an objection to the rehabilitation claims after the rehabilitation procedures commence, or seek the rehabilitation procedures that are prescribed in Articles 170 and 171 of the Act, instead of filing a lawsuit for the final claim inspection judgment at the time rehabilitation procedures commence.

According to the records, the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure of this case for treatment chemical company (hereinafter “treatment chemical”) was made on January 16, 2009, and on the same day, the defendant was appointed as a custodian; the plaintiff filed a payment order against the defendant on March 31, 2009, which was after the above decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure, on which the defendant had filed an objection to the claim for the price of the above goods that the plaintiff reported as a rehabilitation claim on August 24, 2009; the defendant filed an objection to the claim for the price of the above goods which the plaintiff reported as a rehabilitation claim on August 24, 2009; and the plaintiff changed the claim to confirm the rehabilitation claim with the content of the above goods payment claim in the first instance court.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the defendant raised an objection to the rehabilitation claim reported by the plaintiff in the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the plaintiff filed an objection to the judgment in claim allowance proceedings with the defendant as the other party, and according to the result of the judgment, the plaintiff should file a lawsuit of objection to the judgment in claim allowance proceedings and dispute the existence or scope of the claim, but it is unlawful to file the lawsuit of this case against the defendant seeking the performance of the price

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient or inappropriate, the decision of the court below that made the same conclusion is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to procedural defect ratification or incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)