[1] In a case where reorganization proceedings are commenced against an obligor company after repayment or offset, whether it becomes effective only when a report on reorganization claims is filed (negative)

[2] The scope of res judicata effect of a judgment on a specific claim

[1] According to the Company Reorganization Act, reorganization claims shall not be repaid, received, or extinguished without being subject to reorganization proceedings, and any reorganization creditor who wishes to participate in reorganization proceedings shall report reorganization claims, and if a reorganization claim not reported is forfeited when a reorganization plan is approved, a reorganization claim cannot be asserted for offset on the ground that reorganization claim exists unless a reorganization creditor files a report on reorganization claim within the period prescribed by the Company Reorganization Act. However, since the prohibition of repayment of such reorganization claim and the restriction on offset with such prohibition of payment of reorganization claim arise only after the commencement of reorganization proceedings, a claim at the stage other than a reorganization claim may be repaid or offset without the above restriction, which is, before the commencement of reorganization proceedings, and it does not change from the commencement of reorganization proceedings thereafter.

[2] Where the victim of a tort claims part of the damage by clearly stating that it is a partial claim, res judicata of the judgment on such partial claim is limited to the scope of the claim regardless of whether the claim is accepted, and the remaining part of the claim does not affect.

[1] Article 492 of the Civil Code, Articles 112, 125, and 162 of the Company Reorganization Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da3603 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1985) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu536 delivered on December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 226) 87Meu2478 delivered on June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1139), Supreme Court Decision 92Da33008 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2100)

Nonparty 2 and one other (Attorney Seo Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant) who are the administrator of Yyoung-young, the administrator of Yong-young, the litigant, the lawsuit taken over by the non-party 1.

Social Welfare Foundation Supervision of Social Welfare Foundation (Attorney Final0, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na8955 delivered on January 13, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the Company Reorganization Act, reorganization claims cannot be satisfied, received, or extinguished without resorting to reorganization proceedings, and reorganization creditors who intend to participate in reorganization proceedings shall report reorganization claims, and those who intend to participate in reorganization proceedings shall lose their rights when there is a decision to authorize reorganization programs. Therefore, if reorganization creditors did not report reorganization claims within the period provided for in the Company Reorganization Act, they cannot assert offset on the ground that reorganization claims exist (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da3603, Jun. 26, 1998). However, the prohibition of repayment of and restriction on offset against such reorganization claims are created only after the commencement of reorganization proceedings. Thus, it is not different from the commencement of reorganization proceedings after the commencement of reorganization proceedings.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the second ground for appeal

Where a victim of a tort claims a part of the damage by specifying that it is a partial claim, res judicata of the judgment on such partial claim is limited to the scope of the claim regardless of whether or not the claim has been accepted, and it does not affect the remainder claim (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2478, Jun. 27, 1989).

According to the records, the defendant claimed only the balance remaining after offsetting the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the previous lawsuit of this case, and thereafter asserted that the above loan claim was set-off and extinguished as above in the lawsuit of this case brought up thereafter. Thus, if facts exist, the subject matter of the previous lawsuit is the remainder after deducting the part which the defendant's own deduction from the whole amount of the above damage claim, and the res judicata effect of the judgment is limited to the existence of the above remainder, and it does not affect the remaining part. Thus, the defendant's claim of this set-off does not conflict with the res judicata effect

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which accepted the above offset claim by the defendant is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata of the final judgment.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the third ground for appeal

In a claim for damages caused by a tort, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of the grounds for comparative negligence falls under the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da6381, Oct. 22, 199).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court recognized a series of facts as indicated in its holding, and, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s negligence that contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the instant damages, and thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages is not remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)