Effect of the act of offering as security a separate machinery or apparatus owned by the reorganization company, between the receiver and the liquidation company, upon receipt of a registration of establishment of a collateral on the factory building owned by the reorganization company, and on the machinery and apparatus installed therein, prior to a decision to commence reorganization proceedings, by concluding a contract with the reorganization company to add it to the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act,

As the manager of the reorganization company, the act of the liquidation company entering into a contract with the liquidation company to add separate machinery and apparatus owned by the liquidation company, which had been omitted in the list stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, among the registration of the establishment of the said liquidation company, to the above list of the liquidation company, which had already been registered the establishment of a mortgage on the factory buildings, their affiliated buildings, and machinery and apparatus installed thereon prior to the decision to commence reorganization proceedings, and the act of offering them as security shall be restricted by applying Article 398 of the Commercial Act to the interests of the liquidation company unless there are special circumstances. However, since the board of directors of the liquidation company has already been suspended the authority to dispose of the business management and property, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant bank must obtain the permission of the court in lieu of the approval of the board of directors under the Commercial Act, and it cannot be deemed that the defects without the permission of the court have been cured

Article 398 of the Commercial Code, Article 4 of the Factory Mortgage Act, Article 7 of the same Act, Article 54 of the Company Reorganization Act

Plaintiff 1-1

2.2

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (88Gahap5930)

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims (including the claims extended in the trial of the plaintiff 1) are all dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 134,837,50, and KRW 85,000,000 for the plaintiff 2 and the amount of KRW 109,90,00 for the plaintiff 1 and the amount for the plaintiff 2 from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff 1 extended its claim to the first instance).

The same shall apply to the order.

광주지방법원이 1983.2.9. 소외 1 주식회사(이하, 소외회사라 한다)에 대하여 정리절차개시의 결정을 함과 동시에 그 관리인으로서 피고은행을 선임하고, 1984.3.26. 정리계획인가의 결정을 하였다가 1986.5.1. 피고은행의 신청에 의하여 정리절차폐지의 결정을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(등기부등본), 갑 제2호증의 1,2,3(각 공장저당목록), 갑 제3호증의 1,2(판결 및 집행문), 갑 제4호증의 1, 갑 제5호증, 갑 제6호증의 1(각 회사정리계획안), 갑 제7호증의 1(경매명령),2(경매기일공고),3(부동산 임의경매조서),4(경매신청인 성명과 가격목록),5(부동산의 표시),6(기계, 기구목록),8(대금납부 및 지급기일지정서),11(경락대금지급기일조서),12(경락대금납부서), 갑 제8호증의 1(부동산매매계약서),2(부동산의표시),3(기계, 기구목록), 을 제1호증(경락허가결정), 을 제2호증의 1(채권계산서),2(경락대금지급표), 각 공문서 부분은 성립에 다툼이 없고 사문서 부분은 변론의 전취지에 의하여 성립이 인정되는 갑 제11,12호증의 각 1(각 채권양도통지서),각 변론의 전취지에 의하여 성립이 인정되는 갑 제11,12호증의 각 3(각 양도증)의 각 기재와 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고 1은 소외회사에 대한 금 52,900,000원의 약속어음금채권을 가진 자로서 소외회사에 대하여 위와 같이 정리절차가 개시되자 1983.3.30. 위 법원에 위 채권을 정리채권으로 신고하여 같은 해 5.10. 위 채권이 확정되었으며, 그밖에 소외회사를 상대로 원심법원에 86가합536호 로 이득상환청구의 소를 제기하여 1987.1.7. 위 법원으로부터 소외회사는 위 원고에게 금 57,000,000원 및 이에 대한 1986.11.1.부터 완제일까지 연 2할 5푼의 비율에 의한 지연손해금을 지급하라는 승소판결을 선고받고 위 판결이 그즈음 확정된 사실, 또한 소외 2는 1983.3.30. 위 법원에 소외회사에 대한 금 39,800,000원의 약속어음채권을 정리채권으로 신고하고 같은 해 5.6. 그중 금 14,800,000원을 취하하여 같은 달 10. 위 채권이 금 25,000,000원으로 확정되었고, 소외 3은 같은 해 3.30. 같은 법원에 소외회사에 대한 금 60,000,000원의 약속어음금채권을 정리채권으로 신고하여 같은 해 5.10. 위 채권이 확정되었는데, 소외 2는 1986.8.7. 소외 3은 같은 해 2.24. 원고 2에게 위 각 확정된 정리채권을 각 양도하고 위 소외인들이 1986.9.4.경 소외회사에게 위 각 채권양도사실을 통지하여 결국 소외회사에 대하여 원고 1은 합계 금 109,900,000원(52,900,000+57,000,000) 및 그 중 금 57,000,000원에 대한 1986.11.1부터 완제일까지 연 2할 5푼의 비율에 의한 지연손해금의 채권을, 원고 2는 합계금 85,000,000원(25,000,000+60,000,000)의 각 채권을 가지게 된 사실, 한편 피고은행은 위 정리절차를 진행하면서 법원의 허가를 얻어 그 직원인 소외 4를 관리인 대리로 선임하였는데, 소외 4는 1986.2.6. 정리회사이던 소외회사의 관리인 대리의 자격으로 당시 소외회사 소유의 정주시 영파동 500의 12지상의 철근 콘크리트조 철골트러스 및 스레이트 지붕 2층 제지공장건물과 그 부속건물 및 이에 설치된 기계, 기구에 대하여 이미 마쳐져 있던 아래 ① 내지 ③항의 기존 각 근저당권설정등기 중 공장저당법 제7조 에 의한 목록에 소외회사의 소유이던 별지목록 기재의 기계, 기구(이하, 이 사건 기계, 기구라 한다)를 추가하기로 하는 계약을 피고은행과 체결하고, ① 전주지방법원 정주지원 1982.12.1. 접수 제20353호로 마쳐진 순위 4번 근저당권의 공장저당목록 제39호에 같은 지원 1986.2.7. 접수 제3424호로 위 1986.2.6. 추가계약을 원인으로하여 같은 목록 제11호로, ② 같은 지원 1982.12.1. 접수 제20354호로 마쳐진 순위 5번 근저당권의 공장저당 목록 제40호에 같은 지원 1986.2.7. 접수 제3425호로 위 추가계약을 원인으로 하여 같은 목록 제12호로, ③ 같은 지원 1982.12.1. 접수 제20355호로 마쳐진 순위 6번 근저당권의 공장저당목록 제41호에 같은 지원 1986.2.7. 접수 제3426호로 위 추가계약을 원인으로 하여 같은 목록 제13호로 이 사건 기계, 기구를 각 추가 등재하였는데 위 각 추가계약과 이에 따른 이 사건 기계, 기구의 담보제공에 관하여는 위 관리인 등이 법원의 허가를 얻은 일은 없는 사실, 그런데 전주지방법원 정주지원은 소외회사에 대한 정리절차폐지결정이 난 후인 1986.6.12. 피고은행의 신청에 의하여 같은 지원 86타474호 로 이 사건 기계, 기구를 포함한 위 공장건물, 부속건물 및 이에 설치된 기계, 기구 등에 대하여 임의경매개시결정을 하고 같은 해 9.9. 피고은행에게 경락대금 2,808,905,880원(위 공장건물 금 501,429,880원+이 사건 기계, 기구를 포함한 기계, 기

Under the former 2,307,476,00 won, the successful bid price of the machinery and apparatus of this case was 394,168,000 won. Under the former 2,307,476,00 won, the defendant bank set off some of the successful bid price of this case against the non-party company and paid 152,265,160 won to the above court. Under the above 2,808,905,80 won out of the successful bid price was 13,690,720 won out of the above 2,642,950,00 won was appropriated for execution expenses, and there was no possibility that the non-party bank would be subject to the above 700,700,000 won out of the sale of the machinery and apparatus of this case to the non-party company, and the defendant bank would not be subject to the court's approval of the above 97,000,000 won out of the sale of the machinery and equipment of this case.

The plaintiffs, as the administrator of the non-party company, who was organized by the defendant bank, added to the list of factory mortgage under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, which was owned by the non-party company without the above court's permission, and caused damages to the non-party company due to the auction of the above factory building, etc. and again sold the above factory building to the non-party 5 corporation. Therefore, the defendant bank is liable to compensate the non-party company for damages equivalent to the above amount of 394,168,000 won, which is the successful bid price of the machinery of this case and the machinery of this case, as the non-party 1 did not have sufficient funds to compensate the non-party company for damages. Thus, the non-party company's claim for the above damages from the non-party 1 company on behalf of the non-party company to compensate for the above damages due to the non-party company's damages on behalf of the non-party 1 company. Even if the defendant bank did not add it to the list of automatically set forth in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act, it did not affect the above non-party 1 company's.

Therefore, in light of the first argument of the defendant, in light of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7, 47, and 53 of the Factory Mortgage Act and the provisions of Article 186 of the Civil Act, the act of entering into a contract with the non-party company to add the machines, apparatus, and other goods of the factory to the list of the machinery and apparatus stipulated in Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act on its behalf and the effect of factory mortgage shall only take effect (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da1514, 1515, Feb. 9, 198). Thus, since the defendant bank's act of disposing of the above acts without the permission of the court, it is a disposal act that may harm the interests of the non-party company, the act of offering the machines, apparatus, and other goods of the factory to the non-party company, which are owned by the non-party company, the manager of which, on its behalf, the non-party company, as well as the non-party company, which was the non-party company.

Furthermore, according to the above evidence and testimony of the non-party 4 as to the non-party 1's claim for damages against the non-party 6 company's non-party 1 and the non-party 8's claim for damages against the non-party 6 company's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's employees constituted the above non-party 8's factory mortgage claim for the non-party 6 company's non-party 7 factory mortgage claim for the non-party 9's non-party 7 factory mortgage claim for the non-party 6 company's non-party 9's non-party 7 factory mortgage claim for non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 7 factory mortgage claim for non-party 6 company's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 7 factory mortgage claim for non-party 6 company's non-party 9's non-party 4 factory mortgage claim for non-party 6 company's non-party 1's non-party

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiffs on the premise that the liability for damages arising from the tort remains due to the non-party company of the defendant bank is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair by accepting all the claims of the plaintiffs, it shall be accepted by the defendant's appeal, and the judgment of the court below shall be revoked and all the claims of the plaintiffs (including the claims extended in the trial of the plaintiff 1) shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit by the court of first and second

Judges Rentald (Presiding Judge)