Requirements for offsetting reorganization claims against the reorganization company with automatic claims

In order to offset reorganization claims against the reorganization company by automatic credit, it is required that the company will be exempted from liability for all reorganization claims except for the rights recognized by the provisions of the reorganization plan or by the provisions of the Company Reorganization Act, and this effect is not affected by the abolition of reorganization proceedings, so the opposing claim against the reorganization company should have been recognized by the provisions of the reorganization plan.

Articles 162, 241, and 278 of the Company Reorganization Act

The maximum number of years

Doctrine

Seoul Central District Court (85Gahap2057) in the first instance trial

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,311,230 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from April 24, 1985 to May 14, 1985 with an annual interest rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1-2 (Business Closure Certificate), No. 1-2 (Business Closure Certificate), No. 1, and No. 2 (Official Certificate), No. 2-2 (Special Mail Receipt), the original judgment and the trial witness Gap evidence No. 3 (Transaction Book) whose authenticity is presumed to be established by the testimony of the above witness, and the whole purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the above witness, the non-party 1 corporation, the reorganization company operating salt processing business, did not dispute. The non-party 2-1 (Official Certificate), which obtained the defendant's official document No. 593, and notified the defendant of the fact that the non-party 2 obtained the above processed claim from the non-party 4, the non-party 198, with the permission of the non-party 2's official document processing company's office in the name of the non-party 4, the defendant's shape in Jongno-dong Seoul, Jongno-dong, Seoul, with the permission of the above non-party 2-party 1, the defendant's office No.34, 198.

2. Furthermore, according to the above evidence Nos. 4-1, 2 (Written Notice and Notice No. 5 (Written Notice), Gap evidence No. 7 (Certificate No. 8), Gap evidence No. 9-2 (Attachment Report) and Eul evidence No. 1-2 (Business Registration Certificate) and the above witness No. 1-2 and the above witness testimony No. 1-2 (Business Registration Certificate), the above witness No. 9-3 and the above witness No. 9-2 (Business Registration Certificate No. 97) were newly established and the defendant's business was assigned to the above non-party No. 98, which were non-party No. 2, and the defendant's duty to inspect the above evidence No. 98, which were non-party No. 97, which were non-party No. 97, which were non-party No. 8, which were non-party No. 97, which were non-party No.

3. Regarding this, the defendant's assertion that the above non-party company's above non-party company's 20th of June 22, 1982 to September 15, 1982 had an opposing claim of 122,00,000 won for the above non-party company's 6th of set-off against the above non-party company's 20th of June 2, 1982. The defendant's assertion that the above non-party company's order of set-off against the non-party company's 10th of January 26, 1984 was set-off against the non-party company's 20th of May 14, 1986, and that the above non-party company's order of set-off against the non-party company's above non-party company's 20th of June 14, 1982 that the above non-party company's order of set-off against the above non-party company's above non-party company's 2's reorganization claim.

4. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum per commercial law year from April 24, 1985 to May 14, 1985, when it is evident that the delivery date of a copy of the gushesheshes the instant case from April 24, 1985, and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the full payment date. Since the original judgment is dismissed, it is unfair to revoke the plaintiff's claim and accept the plaintiff's claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Park Young-sik (Presiding Judge)