(a) The case holding that there is an error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in incomplete deliberation as to the termination of the underlying relationship

(b) Where the bankruptcy procedure is completed but positive assets remain, whether the bankruptcy corporation’s personality is extinguished (negative)

(a) The case holding that there is an error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in incomplete deliberation as to the termination of the underlying relationship

B. If the bankruptcy procedure for a corporation is completed without any residual property, the personality should be extinguished as in the case of the completion of liquidation. However, if the positive property still remains, the corporation shall continue to exist within the scope of the purpose of liquidation of the property.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 254 of the Bankruptcy Act; Articles 77 and 81 of the Civil Act

Korea Development Bank (Law Firm Gyeongyang, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Lee Young-soo, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 87Na1842 delivered on December 14, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(2) The court below rejected the defendants' defense that the above non-party 1's transfer of promissory notes to the non-party 2 by the non-party 3's non-party 1's disposal of the above non-party 1's vessel and the non-party 2's sale of the above non-party 1's bonds to the non-party 3's sale of the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's claim for the Promissory Notes of this case was an abuse of rights since the plaintiff's acceptance of the Promissory Notes of this case was for the guarantee of the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the above non-party company, and the claim for indemnity of this case was extinguished due to the extinguishment of the claim for indemnity against the above non-party company. The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff bank of this case was a joint guarantor for the above non-party company's overseas exchange bank's loan obligation of 8,671,313,760 won out of the above non-party's Korean currency loan obligation of 3,599.329,80 won out of the above non-party's Korean currency loan obligation of 1980.7.180, 4,157,223,602 won was paid by the foreign exchange bank to the above non-party company, and it did not have any dispute over the above non-party 2's claim for indemnity against the above non-party company's claim for indemnity of this case.

(3) According to the above 1982.12. 31, 198. 4, 157, 23, 602 were received from the above 100, 197, 197, 200, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 20, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 9, 97, 97, 9, 97, 9, 97, 9, 97, 97, 9, 9, 97, 9, 97, 9, 97, 97, 9, 9, 97, 60, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 2, 97, 97, 2, 97, 1986.

Furthermore, if it is recognized that the above converted loan claims against the above non-party company were fully repaid, the plaintiff should return the bill of this case to the above non-party company since the relationship between the grounds for the endorsement of the bill of this case was terminated. In particular, the issuance, guarantee, and endorsement of the bill of this case are made in accordance with the above agreement made on November 29, 1973, in which both the issuer and the guarantor participated in the defendants, the above non-party company who is the payee and the endorser, and the plaintiff who is the respondent. The reason for the issuance of the bill of this case is directly for the defendant company's payment or securing of the ship purchase and sale claims against the non-party company above, but it is true for the defendant company to secure the payment of the ship purchase and sale claims against the non-party company above the above non-party company in this case, and on this premise, the plaintiff's claim against the issuer or guarantor of the bill of this case constitutes abuse of rights. The argument points out this point is with merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

(1) No evidence exists to deem that there was a decision to grant immunity to the above non-party company on the record, and even if a decision to grant immunity was made, the exemption does not affect the creditor’s right to guarantee of the bankrupt and other persons bearing obligations together with the bankrupt, and the security provided for the bankruptcy creditor. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is extinguished or cannot be exercised.

(2) If the bankruptcy procedure of a corporation is completed without any residual property, the personality of the corporation shall be extinguished as in the case of the completion of liquidation. However, if active property is still remaining, the corporation shall continue to exist within the scope of the liquidation purpose of the property. According to the records, in the bankruptcy procedure against the above non-party company, the bankruptcy procedure against the above non-party company, a resolution was made at the creditors' meeting as to the ship purchase-price claim against the defendant company or the above 14 note returned from the plaintiff, but its re-instigation was deferred thereafter, but the court and the creditors agree to distribute the amount that the plaintiff would obtain if the plaintiff won in the lawsuit against the claim for the payment of the bill in this case, it is difficult to view that the ship purchase-price claim corresponding to the bill in this case was extinguished by the waiver of it by the above non-party company.

In the above view, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense on the premise that the above non-party company's exemption from immunity was granted due to the termination of the bankruptcy or the above non-party company's claim for promissory notes or the purchase price for the ship against the defendants of the above non-party company was extinguished due to the termination of the bankruptcy is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the extinguishment of legal personality due to

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)