[1] The method of protesting against the appellate court's decision on the abolition of company reorganization procedure (=special appeal)

[2] Whether an assembly of interested parties prior to the decision to abolish the company reorganization procedure, which was convened by the reorganization court only announced the date of the assembly and without notifying the administrator of the reorganization company of the date of the assembly (negative)

[1] In light of the provisions of Article 280(1) of the Company Reorganization Act, a reappeal against the decision to abolish reorganization proceedings is not allowed, and only a special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 8 of the same Act is allowed.

[2] Article 277 (1) and (2) of the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 5182 of Dec. 12, 1996) stipulate that the date shall be opened before the reorganization court makes a decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings and hear the opinions of interested parties, and that the decision to set the date shall be publicly announced, and further, the decision shall be served on the person known among the persons holding the right recognized under the provisions of the reorganization plan based on the finalized reorganization claim or security, and that the reorganization court shall not serve the notification of the date of assembly to the administrator of the reorganization company. Thus, under Article 15 (1) and (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, if public notice and service are to be made under the Company Reorganization Act, it shall be served on all interested parties. Thus, if the reorganization court duly announces the date of assembly of interested parties, it shall not be deemed that there is an error in failing to serve the notification of the date.

[1] Article 280 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 15 (2) and 277 of the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 5182 of Dec. 12, 1996)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 96Ma2170 dated March 4, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1166) / [1] Supreme Court Order 88Ma266 dated July 25, 1989 (Gong1997Sang, 285) 89Ma879 dated December 23, 1989 (Gong1990, 341) Supreme Court Order 90Ma954 dated May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1728)

Appellant (Law Firm Sungnam General Law Office, Attorney Kim Yong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 96Ra215 dated June 17, 1997

The special appeal is dismissed.

1. First of all, the provisions of Article 280(1) and (2) of the Company Reorganization Act provide that "any appeal against the abolition order of the reorganization proceedings and any appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 8 shall apply mutatis mutandis." In light of the above provisions, with respect to the rejection ruling of the reorganization proceedings, only a special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 8 of the same Act shall be permitted without any reappeal, and the special appeal under Article 420 of the same Act shall be permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 9Ma2170, Mar. 4, 1997; Order 8Ma266, Jul. 25, 1989; Order 87Ma277, Dec. 29, 1987).

2. Grounds for special appeal shall be considered as follows;

Article 277(1) and (2) of the Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 5182 of Dec. 12, 1996) provides that the reorganization court shall hold a date and hear the opinions of interested parties before the abolition of the reorganization proceedings, and that the decision to set the date shall be publicly notified, and that the decision shall be served on the special appellant who is known from among the persons holding the rights recognized under the provisions of the reorganization plan based on the finalized reorganization claim or security, and that the notice of the date of meeting of interested parties as of September 16, 1996 should not be served on the special appellant who is the administrator of the reorganization company. Thus, according to the provisions of Article 15(1) and (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, if a public notice and delivery are to be made under the Company Reorganization Act, it shall have the effect of serving all interested parties. Accordingly, according to the records, since the court of reorganization lawfully announced the date of meeting of interested parties, the special appellant cannot be served on the special appellant, and the court below's assertion that the special interested parties's opinion is not legitimate.

Then, there is no illegality in the order of the court below that the reorganization company judged that there was no possibility to implement the reorganization program. There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)