[1] In a case where the rehabilitation plan has a provision that affects the rights of a public-interest creditor, such as the reduction of claims, whether the alteration of rights may affect the public-interest creditor (negative in principle)

[2] The purport of Article 272(1) and (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and whether the above provision applies to public-interest creditors (negative)

[1] The rehabilitation plan may not stipulate in the rehabilitation plan the provisions that affect the rights of public-interest creditors, such as reduction and exemption of claims, and even if such provisions were stipulated in the rehabilitation plan, the effect of change of rights shall not extend to public-interest creditors unless they consent to such

[2] Article 530-9(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a company established through division or merger after division or a surviving company (hereinafter “debtor company”) shall be jointly and severally liable with the company to repay the obligations of the company before division (Article 530-9(1)). However, a special resolution by the general meeting of shareholders may determine that the succeeding company bears only the obligations with respect to the assets invested by the succeeding company among the obligations of the company to be divided. In such a case, Article 527-5 of the Commercial Act requires the procedures for protecting creditors. However, Article 272(1) and (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”) provides that where a debtor who is a stock company under a rehabilitation plan is divided, a company that is divided and its succeeding company shall not be jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the company before division without the procedures for protecting creditors. The provision of special provisions under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the creditors in rehabilitation procedures may determine whether the division of the company would result in favorable or unfavorable treatment to creditors through the resolution procedure at the meeting of creditors with respect to the rehabilitation plan.

[1] Articles 180(1), 193, and 199 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [2] Articles 180(1), 193, 199, 232, 243, and 272(1) and (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Articles 527-5 and 530-9 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60 Decided January 20, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 386) Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40349 Decided January 28, 2010

Coast General Certified architect Office (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Han-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Dae-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) of the non-party administrator of the rehabilitation debtor treatment-related development corporation, who is the non-party administrator of the rehabilitation debtor treatment-related development corporation.

The bankruptcy trustee of the bankruptcy debtor Kudo Development Corporation, the bankruptcy trustee

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na31696 decided March 27, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. The cost of appeal shall be borne by each party, including the cost incurred by the request for continuation of proceedings. The judgment of the court below shall be corrected as shown in the attached Form.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and each ground of appeal No. 1 by the administrator of the Defendant’s Debtor Rehabilitation and Transmission Development Corporation, Defendant Self-Employed Automobile Sales Corporation

The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning that service payment claims under the instant contract are in divisible for each process, but determined that the basic design service contract and the shop design service contract under the instant contract are separate contracts, which can be divided into separate contracts.

In addition, the lower court determined, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the Plaintiff’s duty to prepare approved books among the service duties under the instant contract and the duty to deliver books on the management ledger of buildings and the duty to supply books on the same price under the

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the nature of the contract, the decentralization of the contract

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2 by the administrator of Defendant Rehabilitation Debtor Treatment & Development Corporation and Defendant Self-Employed Automobile Sales Corporation

The rehabilitation plan does not include any provision that affects the rights of creditors, such as reduction or exemption of claims with respect to public-interest claims, and even if such provision has been provided in the rehabilitation plan, the effect of change of rights does not extend to public-interest creditors unless they agree to such change (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da60, Jan. 20, 2006; 2009Da40349, Jan. 28, 2010).

The court below determined that the above provisions of the rehabilitation plan have no effect on the plaintiff, a public-interest creditor, because it constitutes a provision affecting the public-interest creditor's right of a public-interest creditor without a public-interest creditor's consent, even though the court below provided that the company newly established or surviving the division pursuant to Article 530-9 (1) of the Commercial Act, without the creditor protection procedure under Article 527-5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, if the debtor, a stock company, is divided pursuant to the rehabilitation plan pursuant to the rehabilitation plan pursuant to Article 272 (4) and (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, shall be jointly and severally liable for the company's obligations before the division, without the creditor protection procedure under Article 527-5 of the Commercial Act.

Article 530-9(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a company established through division or merger after division or a surviving company (hereinafter “debtor”) is jointly and severally liable with the company to be divided for the obligations of the company before division (Article 530-9(1)). However, a special resolution by the general meeting of shareholders may determine that the succeeding company bears only the obligations with respect to the assets invested in the company to be divided. In such cases, Article 527-5 of the Commercial Act requires procedures for protecting creditors. However, Article 272(1) and (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that where a debtor who is a stock company is divided pursuant to the rehabilitation plan is divided, a company to be divided and the succeeding company shall not be jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the company before the division without the above procedure for protecting creditors. The provision of such special provisions under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the creditor may determine whether the division of the company would result in favorable or unfavorable outcome to creditors through a resolution at the meeting of creditors with respect to the rehabilitation plan, and the court also decides that the above special provisions in the rehabilitation plan do not apply to the rehabilitation plan.

In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the above rehabilitation plan has no effect on the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff, who is a public-interest creditor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 272 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3 by Defendant Self-Employed Motor Vehicle Sales Company

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below can be found to have errors and errors as stated in the annexed correction sheet, but this is merely a reason for correction of the judgment and is not a reason for reversal of the judgment of the court below (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da40912, Nov. 29, 1996; 2007Da30317, Jul. 26, 2007, etc.).

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that is the ground for appeal of this point.

4. As to the appeal by Defendant Treatment Industry Development Corporation

There is no indication in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and the appellate brief was not filed within the submission period.

5. On the application for taking over the proceedings by the requester for taking over the proceedings

According to the records, the fact that the rehabilitation obligor treatment development corporation was declared bankrupt after the lapse of the period for filing the appellate brief. As such, in the event the court of final appeal declares a judgment without holding any pleadings at the end of the period for filing the appellate brief, it is unnecessary to have the trustee in bankruptcy take over the legal proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da6349, Jul. 11, 2013; 2013Da69866, Jul. 9, 2015). The application for taking over the legal proceedings by the applicant for taking over the legal proceedings is rejected.

6. Conclusion

All appeals and requests for the continuation of proceedings are dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by each party, including the costs incurred in the request for the continuation of proceedings. Correction is made for obvious errors and errors in the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] Correction List: Omitted

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)