The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as to the establishment and the degree of proof of the claim for indemnity and the misapprehension of the legal principles in the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the establishment of the claim for indemnity without the plaintiff's failure to perform his/her obligation to prove

However, this assertion is merely an issue of dispute over the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 231 of the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same applies) provides, “The act of a reorganization company or a third party (hereinafter “resolution company, etc.”) giving a certain reorganization creditor, security holder, or stockholder special benefit without complying with the conditions of the reorganization program shall be null and void.”

Here, “the act of giving special benefits” means the act of providing special benefits different from the conditions of the reorganization program in order to prevent the fair establishment of the reorganization program or to unfairly affect the establishment of the reorganization program.

Therefore, in order to fall under the act of offering special benefits prohibited by the former Company Reorganization Act, the recipient of such special benefits or the reorganization company should have the intention to interfere with the fair establishment of the reorganization plan through the provision of special benefits or unfairly affect the establishment of the reorganization plan, in addition to the fact that the agreement on the provision of special benefits or the agreement on the provision of the reorganization plan was made before the decision on approval of the reorganization plan is finalized

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61925 Decided December 27, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61925 Decided December 27, 200