In case where there was an executive title for a rehabilitation claim or a rehabilitation security right prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, whether a compulsory execution, etc. may be conducted with an executive title for the former rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right after the rehabilitation plan is

When it is decided to grant authorization for a rehabilitation plan, any right of rehabilitation creditors, etc. is altered according to the rehabilitation plan and the effect of immunity takes effect with respect to all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for any right recognized pursuant to the provisions of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). Even if a decision is rendered after the rehabilitation plan is finalized after the rehabilitation plan is finalized, the debtor bears obligations to continue to perform the rehabilitation plan, such as repaying obligations, as prescribed by the rehabilitation plan, and the creditor’s right becomes final and conclusive through the rehabilitation claim, etc. after the rehabilitation procedure is completed (Article 175 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act) and the result of the lawsuit is entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors, etc. (Article 175 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act)

In addition, when a decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures has been made, compulsory execution, etc. based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right shall not be carried out, and any compulsory execution based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right for the debtor's property shall be suspended (Article 58 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). When a decision on authorization of the rehabilitation plan is made, any suspended compulsory execution shall lose its effect (Article

Therefore, even if there is an executive title regarding any rehabilitation claim or any rehabilitation security right before the rehabilitation procedures commence, after the rehabilitation plan is authorized, any right is changed and confirmed pursuant to Article 252 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and any compulsory execution, etc. is not performed according to the executive title concerning any existing rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right, and only the entry of the list of rehabilitation creditors and the list

Articles 58, 175, 251, 252, 255, 256(1), and 283 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84417, 84424, 84431 Decided January 23, 2014 (Gong2014Sang, 470)

Korean High Level Corporation

Masp Co., Ltd.

Korea Bank, Inc. and one other

Daejeon District Court Order 2016Ra1 dated August 10, 2016

The order of the court below shall be reversed. The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the request for the seizure and collection order of this case shall be dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. When it is decided to grant authorization for a rehabilitation plan, any right of rehabilitation creditors, etc. shall be modified according to the rehabilitation plan and the effect of immunity with respect to all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except any right recognized pursuant to the rehabilitation plan or the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). Even if a decision is rendered after the rehabilitation plan is approved, the debtor bears the obligation to continue to perform the rehabilitation plan, such as repaying obligations, as prescribed by the rehabilitation plan, and the creditor’s right becomes final and conclusive through the rehabilitation claim, etc. after the rehabilitation procedure is completed (Article 175 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act), and the result of the lawsuit shall be entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors, etc. (Article 175 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act) and the rehabilitation plan for the unregistered rehabilitation claims, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da8417, 8424, 8431, Jan. 23, 2014)

In addition, when the commencement of rehabilitation procedures has been decided, compulsory execution, etc. based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right shall not be carried out, and any compulsory execution based on any rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right already carried out for the debtor's property shall be suspended (Article 58 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act), and when a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan is made, the suspended compulsory execution shall lose its effect (Article 25

Therefore, even if there is an executive title regarding any rehabilitation claim or any rehabilitation security right before the rehabilitation procedures commence, after the rehabilitation plan is authorized, any right is changed and confirmed pursuant to Article 252 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and any compulsory execution, etc. is not performed according to the executive title concerning any existing rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right, and only the entry of the list of rehabilitation creditors and the list

2. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) On February 18, 2011, a notary public drafted a notarial deed No. 218, No. 2011 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with respect to promissory notes with an issuer as an obligor, and with respect to an addressee’s obligee, KRW 1.45 billion as an obligee.

(2) The Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures on October 15, 2012 in the case No. 2012 Gohap147 against the debtor. On March 6, 2013, the creditor reported the claim KRW 1.45 billion on the instant No. 1450,000 to the above court as a rehabilitation claim, but the debtor’s administrator denied it.

(3) On March 29, 2013, the above court issued the rehabilitation plan approval order on February 5, 2014, which became final and conclusive on February 5, 2014, and completed the rehabilitation procedure termination decision on December 10, 2014.

(4) After that, on December 15, 2015, the creditor filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim with the title of execution.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the rehabilitation plan approval plan was finalized for the debtor as rehabilitation claims, only the entry of the table of rehabilitation creditors or the table of rehabilitation secured creditors pursuant to Article 255 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is an executive title, and the notarial deed of this case cannot become an executive title. Accordingly, the seizure and collection order of this case with the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case cannot be accepted.

Nevertheless, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment, which is the receipt of an application for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, on the ground that the rehabilitation procedure for the debtor has been completed, and thus, the compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed as to the rehabilitation claim is permitted. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the enforcement title as to rehabilitation claims and the validity of the rehabilitation plan approval order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for

4. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the court to directly judge, the decision of the court of first instance is revoked and the application for the seizure and collection order of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)