Where a decision on the completion of reorganization proceedings is confirmed during the continuation of a claim based on the action of denial or the exercise of avoidance power under the former Company Reorganization Act, the validity of the action of denial.

Articles 78 (refer to Article 100 of the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), 82 (refer to Article 105 of the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and 271 (refer to Article 283 of the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act) of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005)

Supreme Court Decision 95Da30253 Decided October 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3775) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46058 Decided July 22, 2004 (Gong2006Ha, 1884) Decided October 12, 2006

receiver of the reorganization company's career as the receiver of the reorganization company's career;

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na11488 delivered on August 2, 200

Defendant (Law Firm Han, Attorney Choi Woo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na73452 decided Feb. 8, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed. The lawsuit in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated by the decision of the completion of company reorganization procedure as of September 27, 2005 in the Seoul Central District Court 2003da9 case. The plaintiff's request for continuation of the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the plaintiff's

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

Article 78 of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005, hereinafter the "Company Reorganization Act") provides that the right to set aside under Article 78 of the former Company Reorganization Act (the "Company Reorganization Act") is a special system with limited liability under the Company Reorganization Act, which is recognized to maintain and restore the company's business by restoring the company's property unfairly disposed prior to the decision to commence reorganization proceedings, and can only be exercised by the administrator on the premise that the reorganization proceedings are in progress. Thus, even if the right to set aside is exercised during the reorganization proceedings, if the reorganization proceedings are completed prior to the recovery of the assets to the reorganization company, the right to demand return of the assets to the other party as an effect of exercising the right to set aside or to demand redemption of the value thereof shall also be deemed extinguished. Thus, if a decision to terminate the reorganization proceedings becomes final during the period of filing a claim for avoidance or exercising the right to set aside, at the same time, the right related to the lawsuit concerned shall also be extinguished, and any person may succeed (see it.

In light of the records, the lawsuit of this case is filed by the administrator of the reorganization company on the ground that the act of endorsement by the reorganization company which caused the claim in relation to the defendant's bill gold claim based on the final judgment is subject to the denial under Article 78 of the Company Reorganization Act. The reorganization company's decision on May 14, 2003 became final and conclusive on the ground that the reorganization company's reorganization decision was approved by the Seoul Central District Court 20039, and the reorganization plan was approved, and the reorganization procedure is proceeding. The decision was completed on September 27, 2005, which was prior to the judgment of the court below, and the decision became final and conclusive around that time, and the plaintiff's successor to the lawsuit of this case

Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is deemed to have been terminated by the completion of the above reorganization proceedings in accordance with the above legal principles, and the application for the succession of this case by the plaintiff's applicant is also without merit. Thus, the court below dismissed the application for the succession of this case and should have declared the termination of the lawsuit, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinguishment of the avoidance power in the case where the decision to terminate the company reorganization procedure becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, without any need to examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff applicant, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for this court to render a judgment based on the above facts. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is declared to have been terminated by the final decision on the closure of the company reorganization procedure, and the plaintiff's request for continuation is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the plaintiff applicant and it is so

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)