logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.07.09 2019나2034211
채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of this court in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The business agreement in the fourth 14th th th th th s of the judgment of the first instance is regarded as the "business agreement" (hereinafter referred to as the "business agreement of this case").

In the 9th judgment of the first instance court, the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005, Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "former Company Reorganization Act") is amended.

Part 9, 7, and 8 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

Article 149 (1) and (2) of the former Company Reorganization Act (Article 147 (1) (i) Where a lawsuit is pending in respect of a reorganization claim or security prescribed in Article 147 (1) at the time of the decision to commence reorganization proceedings, if a reorganization creditor or security holder desires to request the confirmation of such right, he/she shall take over the lawsuit against the objector.

(2) Article 147 (2) through (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis in case of paragraph (1).

(ii)Article 147, Section 2 (the action under paragraph (1) shall be brought within one month from the date on which the right has been investigated.

(1) When a rehabilitation creditor or a rehabilitation secured creditor intends to have a claim to have a claim to which an objection is raised under Article 172(1) and (2) of the Act (i) when the lawsuit on the claim to which an objection is raised is pending at the time rehabilitation procedures commence, all of the objectors shall take over the proceedings as other parties to the lawsuit.

(2) The provisions of Articles 167 (3) and 170 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any application that is filed for taking over the litigation procedures pursuant to paragraph (1).

(i)the application described in the main sentence of paragraph (1) shall be made within one month from the last day of the inspection period or from the special inspection date.

The judgment of the court of first instance of " is not different from that of others." The judgment of the court of first instance of 9 pages.

arrow