A. Whether an action for confirmation of reorganization claims under Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act may be brought in a case where a lawsuit is to be filed under Article 149 of the same Act (negative);

B. Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act, where a lawsuit on a reorganization claim to which an objection has already been raised is pending at the time of commencement of the reorganization procedure, the fact that a lawsuit is pending is not to file a new lawsuit against the objectors under Article 147 of the same Act, but to take over the pending lawsuit is for the purpose of preventing the costs and time waste of both parties following the filing of a new lawsuit, and at the same time for preventing the spread of litigation proceedings. In addition, the lawsuit under Article 147 of the same Act differs in the litigation procedures, such as the filing of a separate lawsuit under Article 149 of the same Act is to be filed with the court in which the original lawsuit is pending, and thus, it is inappropriate to protect the rights, as there is no benefit of protection.

Articles 147 and 149 of the Company Reorganization Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

1. The case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na57378, 90Na57385 decided May 31, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act, in a case where a lawsuit on a reorganization claim against an objection is pending at the time the company commences reorganization, a reorganization creditor shall file an objection to the objection within one month from the date of investigation into the right, but this is a special provision on the principle of Article 147 of the same Act, which provides that a reorganization claim against which an objection is raised shall be confirmed as a lawsuit, and where a lawsuit against a reorganization company is pending at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, the purport of a lawsuit against the reorganization company is to avoid a new lawsuit by taking over it by using the lawsuit, and it does not necessarily require a new procedure for taking over. Thus, in this case, even if the plaintiffs raised an objection from the defendant on April 4, 190 as to the reorganization claim of this case where the lawsuit is pending at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, and without taking the procedure for taking over the previous lawsuit on May 1, 199, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

However, Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act, where a lawsuit on a reorganization claim against an objection is pending at the time of the commencement of the reorganization procedure, not a new lawsuit for the confirmation of a reorganization claim under Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act against an objector is pending, the fact that the lawsuit is pending is for the public interest purpose of preventing both parties' costs and time waste due to the reorganization of a new lawsuit, and at the same time preventing the spread of litigation proceedings, and the lawsuit under Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act differs from the exclusive jurisdiction of the reorganization court, such as the request for resumption of the lawsuit under Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act is to be filed with the court in which the original lawsuit is pending. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that filing a separate lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights in the case where the lawsuit is to be accepted under Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act.

Nevertheless, in the case of this case subject to the procedure for taking over a lawsuit under Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act, the court below judged that it is not illegal even if it filed a new suit under Article 147 of the same Act shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the procedure for taking over a reorganization claim. The argument that points this

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)