Where an obligor has reported a claim against a third party that has been transferred to an obligee for security of a loan to a third party as a rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure for the third party and it is decided to substitute the repayment of the rehabilitation claim through conversion into investments under the rehabilitation plan

In a case where an obligor transferred a claim to a creditor for the purpose of securing another claim against a third party for the purpose of securing the claim, and the transferred claim is reported as a rehabilitation claim by a creditor in the rehabilitation procedure against a third party and all or part of the claim is converted into equity in accordance with the rehabilitation plan, the claim corresponding to the appraised value of new shares acquired by the creditor as of the date when the issuance of new shares becomes effective shall be deemed to have been repaid.

Articles 206(1) and 265(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 372 of the Civil Act / [Transfer for Security]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 12710 decided Jan. 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 612) (Gong2001Da64073 decided Aug. 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1905)

E. S. S. L.S. (Attorneys Tae Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Bank (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na54238 Decided June 27, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where an obligor transferred to a creditor another claim against a third party for the purpose of securing a loan claim, and the transferred claim was reported as a rehabilitation claim by a creditor in the rehabilitation procedure against a third party after the date of the transfer, and was to substitute for the repayment of the rehabilitation claim by conversion of all or part of the rehabilitation claim into equity according to the rehabilitation plan, the amount equivalent to the appraised value of new shares acquired by the creditor as of the date of entry into force of the issuance of new shares shall be deemed to have been repaid (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da12703, 12710, Jan. 10, 2003; 2001Da64073, Aug. 22, 2003, etc.).

2. Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Defendant acquired the instant credit sales claims against the Plaintiff, as collateral, while making the instant loan by means of credit sales claims having the right of recourse against the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant reported the instant credit sales claims to the Defendant as rehabilitation claims in the rehabilitation procedure for the brick Construction Co., Ltd.; (c) the rehabilitation plan to convert the above credit sales claims into equity swap 75% of the credit sales claims into equity and substitute the payment of the claims on the date when the issuance of new shares becomes effective; and (d) the Defendant accepted the walls Construction Co., Ltd., which was the effective date of the issuance of new shares, on November 14, 2012, the fact that the market price of the new shares was 1,285 per share at the time when the issuance of new shares became effective; and (e) determined

3. Examining the above legal principles and records, although this part of the judgment below's explanation is insufficient, the conclusion that the defendant extinguished the amount equivalent to the appraised value as of the effective date of issuance of new stocks through a conversion of part of credit sales claims into equity among the loan claims in this case is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)