Whether an act of a receiver of a reorganization company's agreement to purchase materials with a promissory note issued by another person and pay funds at the due date for payment constitutes a borrowing of money subject to permission from the reorganization court when the above promissory note was not settled due to default on payment.

If the receiver of a reorganization company has agreed to purchase materials with a promissory note issued by the plaintiff and pay the amount of 11,00,000 won for a promissory note issued by the plaintiff at the due date, and then has delivered 11,00,000 won for a promissory note issued by the plaintiff at the face value as an electrical charge, and each of the above promissory note at the face value of 3,740,000 won for a payment by the due date, was not deposited until the due date, and each of the above promissory note was in default, and as a result, it does not constitute an act of borrowing money subject to the permission of the reorganization court, as an agreement for compensation for a violation of the agreement by the reorganization company, by which the plaintiff who has offered a promissory note to the liquidation company is suspended from banking transactions and has damaged credit.

Article 54 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 55 of the same Act

Formation

The manager of the Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd., and the Taesung Heavy Industrial Co., Ltd., the administrator of Kim Jong-kin Kim Jong-kak

Seoul District Court (88Gahap4748 delivered on July 1, 201)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

The above portion of evidence No. 4-1 to 5 (each front and rear side of a promissory note) and No. 8-1, 2 (each protocol of examination), and the portion of official evidence No. 1 to be established without dispute. The portion of official evidence No. 1, No. 2 (written agreement), and evidence No. 5 and No. 7 (written confirmation) which are acknowledged as authenticity by the testimony of the above witness, and the whole purport of the pleading of the above witness No. 7 (written evidence No. 1 to be signed, No. 300, No. 1 to be signed by the above witness No. 4, No. 7) and the above witness No. 80, No. 1 to be signed by the defendant company's testimony No. 1 to be signed, No. 300, No. 1 to be signed by the above written statement No. 30, No. 1 to be signed by the above company for the settlement of the price No. 1 to be signed by the above witness No. 30, No. 1 to be settled No. 80.

The defendant's administrator of the above reorganization company shall obtain prior permission from the court when he disposes of the company's properties. Since the administrator non-party Park Jong-ho did not obtain permission from the court and this agreement results from the disposal of the company's properties, the above agreement against the plaintiff is invalid. Thus, according to Gap evidence No. 3-1 (decision), the administrator of the above reorganization company shall transfer ownership of the company's properties and rights, creation of security right, or take any other disposal of the company's properties and rights, or obtain permission from the court when he borrows money under any pretext or method, the above reorganization company's above agreement against the plaintiff is subject to disposition on default because the plaintiff who offered the above reorganization company did not deposit the company's properties, and thus it is not subject to permission from the court for the above reorganization. Thus, the above agreement is not subject to permission from the court for the above reorganization. Thus, the above agreement is not subject to permission from the court for compensation.

Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 30,000,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from June 22, 1988 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking performance is justified, and the decision of the court below is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal cost.

Judges Suspension-type (Presiding Judge) Relocation of Kim Jin-jin