A person liable to repay public-interest claims under Article 281 of the Company Reorganization Act

The purpose of Article 281 of the Company Reorganization Act is that when a decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings becomes final and conclusive, the receiver shall repay the claims for public interest with the assets of the reorganization company, not that the receiver has an obligation to individually repay the claims for public

Article 281 of the Company Reorganization Act

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Korea Rubb Industrial Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap7111) in the first instance trial

(1) Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff is revoked.

Defendant rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,676,701 and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from July 25, 1967 to the time of full payment.

(2) The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Seoul Bank is dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea rubber Industrial Company shall be borne by both the first and second instances, Defendant Korea rubber Industrial Company, and the Plaintiff’s appeal costs against Defendant Seoul Bank shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(4) Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

As a result, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,676,701 and the amount of KRW 26% per annum from July 25, 1967 to the date of full payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants, and a judgment of provisional execution

First of all, the part of the claim against the defendant Korea Rubber Industries Co., Ltd. (formerly, East rubber Industries Co., Ltd.) is examined.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Settlement Protocol), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Application for Rent), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Application for Loan Permission), and Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Promise Bills), the decision to commence corporate reorganization against the defendant company on Oct. 17, 1966 was made on Oct. 22, 1971, and the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings was made on Jun. 22, 1971. However, on July 24, 1967, the plaintiff and the defendant company, the reorganization company at the time of reorganization, converted the claims to the claims against the defendant company through legal reconciliation, and recognized them as priority claims, and agreed to pay interest at a different rate of 17,676,700,000 won, and the remaining amount of 15,676,701 won and interest rate of 26% per annum.

Therefore, the previous reorganization company shall be deemed to have been returned to a normal defendant company due to the confirmation of the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff who had public interest claims against the reorganization company at the time can claim his claim against the ordinary defendant company. Accordingly, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above claim to the plaintiff.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the amount of KRW 15,676,701, which is a public-interest claim, and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from July 25, 1967 to the time of full payment pursuant to the above settlement agreement is justified.

Next, the claim portion against the defendant Seoul Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Bank") is examined.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, under Article 281 of the Company Reorganization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the defendant bank, as the administrator of the reorganization company at the time of statutory reconciliation on July 24, 1967, recognized the plaintiff's claim against the reorganization company as a priority claim, the defendant bank was dismissed from the position of the administrator because the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings became final and conclusive, and even if the status has ceased to exist, the defendant bank is liable for the repayment independently to the former administrator as to the public interest claim.

However, it is difficult to view that the reorganization company has separate liability for repayment on a public-interest claim even after the reorganization company was returned to the ordinary company after the reorganization company was organized, and there is no other legal basis to support the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no need to determine otherwise.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant bank, who was a manager of the first preliminary claim, was liable for damages arising from tort because it did not purport to take such measures, such as repayment of the plaintiff's public interest claims and provision of security therefor when the decision to reject the reorganization proceedings becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is a unsecured claim, and the defendant company's insolvency incurred considerable damages due to the defendant company's insolvency.

In this regard, the defendant bank argued that the liquidation company's assets were insufficient to repay the total amount of the common-interest claims at the time when the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings became final and conclusive.

Therefore, in light of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (Business Transfer Mark, its contents, balance sheet, short-term loans, and Account Statement) of Eul without dispute in its establishment, the part of testimony of the witness warning (a plurally unclear point) can be seen as follows: (a) as of August 2, 1971 when the reorganization company's assets as of August 2, 1971, which became final and conclusive, as of August 2, 1971, as of August 2, 1971, that the above reorganization company's assets were 423,00,000 won, and the total amount of public interest claims was 594,00,000 won. If the circumstances at the time of the above reorganization company were to the above recognition, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant bank, the administrator, did not provide the plaintiff with repayment of public interest claims or collateral, and there is no evidence to support this point, and therefore, this part of the allegation is groundless.

In light of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, 4, and 5 (application for rent, loan permission, and promissory note) as the second preliminary claim, the plaintiff alleged that Gap's 2 was seeking to pay money in accordance with the agreement of the court reconciliation protocol by the witness Gap No. 2, July 24, 1967, in full view of Gap evidence No. 3, 4, and 5 (application for rent, loan permission, and promissory note), it can be acknowledged that the administrator of the reorganization company made legal compromise with the purport that the defendant bank appeared as a party and recognized the plaintiff's claims against the reorganization company as public interest claims, and it is difficult to view that the defendant bank made a compromise with the content that the defendant bank individual repaid public interest claims

If so, it is unnecessary to determine the remainder of the defendant bank's remaining arguments, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant bank is without merit.

In other words, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company shall be accepted and the claim against the defendant bank shall be dismissed. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment against the defendant company shall be revoked in a different conclusion, and therefore, this part of the appeal shall be justified, and with respect to the defendant bank, the first instance court shall dismiss and dismiss the plaintiff's appeal, but there shall be no disadvantage to the plaintiff.

The costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff and the defendant company shall be borne by the defendant company in both the first and second instances, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff and the defendant bank shall be borne by the plaintiff and provisional execution shall be conducted only by the plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)