In a case where an immediate appeal is filed against a decision to authorize a change in the repayment plan in the individual rehabilitation procedure and a decision to grant immunity has become final and conclusive during the appellate trial or reappeal trial, whether there is a benefit of dissatisfaction with an immediate appeal or reappeal (negative)

Articles 247(3) and (7), 615(1), 618, 619, 624(1), and 625(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; Article 96 of the Rules on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy; Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit] and Article 442 of the same Act

Supreme Court Order 2018Ma6313 Decided July 25, 2019 (Gong2019Ha, 1651)

Korea Light Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd.

Seoul Congress Order 2018Ra100372 dated September 27, 2018

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Where an immediate appeal is filed against a decision to authorize a repayment plan change in the individual rehabilitation procedure, and even if the decision to grant immunity is pending in the appellate court or the reappeal, if the decision to grant immunity becomes final and conclusive, the appellant or re-appellant is no longer entitled to appeal against a decision to authorize a change in the repayment plan, and such immediate appeal or re-appeal is unlawful (see Supreme Court Order 2018Ma6313, Jul. 25, 2019).

2. According to the record, the following facts are revealed.

A. On April 3, 2014, the debtor obtained authorization for a repayment plan (for 60 months from February 28, 2014 to January 28, 2019) and submitted a draft change in the repayment plan (for 49 months from February 28, 2014 to February 28, 2018) to the effect that the repayment period is reduced on January 15, 2018. The first instance court decided to authorize a change in the repayment plan to the above draft change on June 7, 2018. The re-appellant filed an immediate appeal against the above authorization decision, and the lower court dismissed the re-appellant’s appeal on September 27, 2018. The re-appellant filed the instant reappeal on October 8, 2018.

B. Meanwhile, the debtor filed an application for discharge on the ground of the completion of repayment according to the changed repayment plan on June 11, 2018, the first instance court accepted the application on September 14, 2018 and rendered a decision to exempt the debtor (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”), and on September 20, 2018, published the order of the instant decision to grant immunity and the summary of the grounds therefor. The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time.

3. Examining these factual relations in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since individual rehabilitation procedures are terminated as the immunity decision of this case became final and conclusive after the re-appellant’s appeal was dismissed, the reappeal of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of dissatisfaction. Therefore, to dismiss the reappeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)