Whether a registration in violation of Article 13(2) of the Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth is effective where the registration conforms to the substantive legal relationship

The registration is in violation of Article 13 (2) of the Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Listing, but if the benefit of the time limit of the adjusted bonds is lost pursuant to Article 19 (1) of the Corporate Disclosure Promotion Act, and the creditor has the authority to make a registration of ownership transfer for the execution of security right pursuant to the agreement because he/she failed to fully repay the principal and interest of the bonds until the grace period and the maturity period of the bonds expire, so it is reasonable that the registration is valid if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other, Attorney Han-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 74Na936 delivered on September 11, 1975

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The court below's decision is legitimate in light of records, since it is clear that the amount of KRW 600,00,00 borrowed from Defendant 1 on October 12, 1970 constitutes Article 1 (1) 3 of the above provision, and was reported as corporate bonds pursuant to Article 19 of the Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth of August 3, 1972, for six months pursuant to Article 19 (3) of the Decree on the Enforcement of Article 19 (1) 3 of the Decree on the Enforcement of the Order, and was converted into an adjusted bond to be repaid in equal amount every three months from the expiration date of the grace period of one year from the expiration date of the grace period of one year. According to Article 1 (1) 5 of the Act, since the court below's corporate bonds are KRW 600,000,000, the court below's corporate bonds constitute the above provision, and it cannot be viewed that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether they fall under the above provision 1 (3) of the above.

Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to Article 19 (1) of the Corporate Disclosure Promotion Act, if an enterprise under Article 11 of the Emergency Order fails to pay interest on the adjusted bonds for not less than three consecutive months or fails to pay it, bondholders shall lose the benefit of the adjusted bonds after giving a peremptory notice in writing for a fixed period of not less than ten days. In this case, plaintiffs 1 did not pay interest on the adjusted bonds for not less than three consecutive months. Although the peremptory notice was given to plaintiffs 1 of April 3, 1973 for a fixed period of not less than ten days pursuant to the above Act, the above plaintiff's interest would lose the benefit of the adjusted bonds because the above plaintiff's interest would not be paid for the purpose of this case due to its failure to pay the interest, and the above decision of the court below is just in violation of Article 19 (1) of the Act, and it is not proper to have the right to make a provisional registration under the above provisional registration under the name of the court below for the purpose of executing the right and interest of the plaintiff 1 of this case even if it violated the above provision of Article 13 (1) of the Act.

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

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)