logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.05.15 2015다200685
보증채무부존재확인
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that Article 11(2) of the Guarantee Obligation Agreement of this case was unfair in violation of the principle of good faith or did not constitute an unreasonably unfavorable clause against the customer, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said provision is invalid in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2 and Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides that the rehabilitation plan does not affect any right held by any rehabilitation creditor or any rehabilitation secured creditor against any guarantor of the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedures commence (hereinafter “Rehabilitation debtor”) and any other person who bears obligations together with the rehabilitation debtor.

However, in cases where it is prescribed in the rehabilitation plan for the rehabilitation debtor, who is the principal debtor, to convert the amount of debt equivalent to the appraised amount of the rehabilitation claim to be paid in lieu of the repayment of the rehabilitation claim, the surety obligation of the debtor shall be deemed to have been repaid within the limit of the market value of new shares acquired by the rehabilitation creditor as of the date when the issuance of new shares

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85830, Mar. 25, 2010). This legal doctrine applies to the consolidation of the rehabilitation plan’s shares issued by the conversion of investment into equity among rehabilitation creditors, the issuance of new shares by conversion of investment into equity, the old shares of existing shareholders, and the shares of rehabilitation creditors issued by conversion of investment into equity.

arrow