(a) When the decision on abolition of company reorganization procedures has been rendered, the time of commencing the proceedings of extinctive prescription of guaranteed liabilities interrupted;

(b) Where a decision on approval of a reorganization program has been made to exempt a guarantee obligation from such obligation, the point of commencement of extinctive prescription for the guaranteed obligation the main obligation;

A. The participation in the company reorganization procedure has practical quality as the exercise of the right by the reorganization creditor or security holder, and the interruption of prescription, which is recognized as an act of participation, under Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act, extends to the surety obligation whose principal obligation is the reorganization company's obligation, and its effect continues as long as the exercise of the right to participate in the reorganization procedure continues, so if the reorganization plan is approved and the decision to abolish the reorganization procedure is rendered because it is obvious that the execution of the reorganization procedure is no network for it, it appears that the exercise of the right by the creditor in the reorganization procedure at

(b) Where the approval of the reorganization program is decided to exempt the principal obligation from the obligation, the principal obligation shall be extinguished in a final and conclusive manner by the confirmation of the approval decision, and since the exercise of rights by the creditor in the reorganization program is terminated at that time, the extinctive prescription of the guaranteed obligation, which is interrupted by the principal obligation, shall be renewed from the time when the approval decision becomes final and conclusive.

Article 178 of the Civil Act, Articles 5 and 240 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Defendant (Appointed Party) 1 and one other

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na46765 delivered on January 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

The intervention in the company reorganization procedure has the substance as the exercise of the right by the reorganization creditor or security holder, and the interruption of prescription, which is recognized as the act of participation, under Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act, shall also be effective against the guaranteed obligation whose principal obligation is the reorganization company's obligation, and its effect shall continue as long as the exercise of the right by the reorganization company is continued. Therefore, in case where the reorganization plan is approved and the decision to abolish the reorganization procedure is rendered because it is obvious that there is no possibility of execution of the plan, then the creditor's exercise of right in the reorganization procedure is terminated at the time the decision becomes final and conclusive, and therefore, the period of extinctive prescription of the suspended guaranteed obligation should resume again from that time (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2055, Feb. 23, 198).

Therefore, the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, deemed that the reorganization program was re-scheduled from June 30, 1981, with the purport that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity of the damages incurred in delay is exempt from the reorganization proceedings, and that the extinctive prescription period shall resume from June 30, 1981, for which the reorganization program was approved, and that the portion of damages incurred from October 23, 1992, which was brought against the claim for indemnity, until October 22, 1987, which was five years retroactively from October 23, 1992, was extinguished by the completion of the commercial extinctive prescription period for five years, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription period of the guaranteed obligation whose principal

2. The second ground of appeal is examined.

When a decision is made to approve a reorganization plan, the company shall be exempted from its liability for the reorganization claim or security except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the Company Reorganization Act (the main sentence of Article 241 of the Company Reorganization Act), and it shall not be held liable for any claim not included in the provisions of the plan because it is not reported as a reorganization claim in the company reorganization procedure.

In the above purport, the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, did not report the amount of KRW 1,581,980, which the plaintiff claimed as expenses incurred in provisional seizure, as reorganization claim in the company reorganization procedure of this case, and thus, the non-party Corporation of the non-party engineering industry, the reorganization company, was exempted from the above debt by the approval decision of the reorganization plan in the company reorganization procedure of this case, it is reasonable to determine that the above reorganization company's KRW 1,581,980 out of the amount of KRW 12,55,820 paid to the plaintiff on April 19, 1984, was not appropriated for the above provisional seizure expense of the plaintiff's assertion, but was appropriated for the payment of part of the principal of the claim for indemnity, which is a reorganization claim, and there is no

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)