[1] In case where a reorganization creditor or security holder accepts new stocks in lieu of satisfaction pursuant to the reorganization program, whether the guaranteed obligation is extinguished (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a reorganization creditor or security holder acquires convertible bonds in lieu of satisfaction pursuant to a reorganization program, whether the guaranteed obligation is extinguished (negative)

[3] Whether a reorganization creditor or security holder may continue to participate in reorganization proceedings with the full amount of claims at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, even in cases where a partial repayment or distribution is received from another debtor after the commencement of reorganization proceedings

[1] In a case where it is decided to substitute a reorganization claim or security in return for the repayment of all or part of the reorganization claim or security through the conversion of investment by issuing new stocks under the reorganization program, the principal obligation of the reorganization company with respect to the amount equivalent to the market price of the new stocks which the reorganization creditor or security holder acquired at the time of the entry into force of the issuance of new stocks shall be deemed to have

[2] In case where convertible bonds are issued to reorganization creditors or security holders in lieu of satisfaction of the reorganization claim or security, the reorganization creditor or security holder still maintains a creditor's status and only the amount of claims is reduced, and the form of securities is increased in the form of securities to enhance circulation, in light of the fact that the guaranteed liability equivalent to the market price of the stocks is extinguished when the conversion right is exercised, separate from the actual exercise of the convertible right, it cannot be deemed that the principal debt has been actually satisfied as at the time of acquisition of the convertible bonds, unless there are any special circumstances, prior to the exercise of the convertible right, and therefore, the guaranteed liability cannot be said to be extinguished as at

[3] Even if a reorganization creditor or security holder received a partial repayment from another debtor, or a repayment or distribution by participating in the company reorganization procedure or bankruptcy procedure for another debtor, after the commencement of reorganization proceedings, it does not result in a decrease in the reorganization claim amount unless a creditor obtains the full satisfaction of the claim, so a creditor may continue to participate in reorganization proceedings with the full amount of claim at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings.

[1] Articles 240(2) and 254(1) of the Company Reorganization Act / [2] Articles 240(2) and 256(1) of the Company Reorganization Act / [3] Articles 108, 109, and 123(2) of the Company Reorganization Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64035 Decided January 11, 2002 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da12703, 12710 decided Jan. 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 612) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64073 decided Aug. 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1905) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da24379 decided Dec. 24, 2002 (Gong203Sang, 443). Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62114 decided Feb. 26, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 903Sang, 201Da640382 decided Feb. 26, 2003

The bankruptcy trustee, Kim Jae-gu, the bankruptcy trustee, the bankruptcy trustee, the taking-off of Park Jae-gu, and the bankruptcy trustee, the taking-off of the lawsuit by the Lee Jae-gu, the bankruptcy trustee of a foreign comprehensive financial company of the bankrupt country, and one other (Law Firm Jae-gu,

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff Mandrck Park, Inc., Ltd., a lawsuit taking place by the administrator of the Madrckroid, Inc. (Law Firm Han-hwan, Attorneys Kim Yong-z., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na59480 delivered on April 30, 2004

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

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal, such as misapprehension of legal principles as repayment of security and validity of issuance of convertible bonds

가. 원심이 인용한 제1심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 채용 증거들을 종합하여, 소외 동아투자금융 주식회사(파산 전 나라종합금융 주식회사의 전신이다. 이하 '나라종금'이라 한다)가 1993. 7. 8. 소외 세계물산 주식회사(이하 '세계물산'이라 한다)와 사이에 한도액 199억 원의 어음거래약정을 체결함에 있어서 나라종금과의 직접적인 어음거래 또는 나라종금의 어음보증 등으로 세계물산이 나라종금에 대하여 부담하는 모든 채무에 대하여 소외 대우정밀공업 주식회사가 연대보증을 하였는데, 그 후 피고가 그 연대보증채무를 인수한 사실, 세계물산에 대하여 1999. 9. 3. 회사정리절차가 개시되었는데 나라종금은 당시 세계물산에 대한 위 어음거래약정상의 미회수 구상금채권으로서 원금 4,247,974,504원, 개시 전 이자 금 161,423,031원, 합계 금 4,409,397,535원의 채권이 있었고, 이에 세계물산의 정리절차에서 이를 신고하여 그대로 시인된 사실, 세계물산에 대한 회사정리계획에서는 위 원금 4,247,974,504원 중 85%인 금 3,610,778,328원을 2005년도부터 2010년도까지 균등 분할하여 상환받고, 나머지 원금 15%와 개시 전 이자는 전환사채를 발행하여 상환받으며, 전환사채로 발행되는 원금의 개시 후 이자는 전액 면제하고 원금 85%의 개시 후 이자는 준비년도부터 제10차년도까지 매년 당해 연도 발생분을 변제기일에 변제받는 것으로 확정되었으며, 이에 따라 2001. 2. 23. 나라종금에 발행된 전환사채는 위 원본의 15%인 금 637,196,176원 및 개시 전 이자를 합하여 약 금 798,610,000원 상당이었는데, 채권의 만기가 2011. 2. 22.로서 인수시점으로부터 10년 후이고, 전환권행사기간이 발행일로부터 2011. 1. 22.(만기 1달 전)까지로 되어 있었으며, 만기까지의 이자율은 0%이고, 전환가격이 15,000원이지만 주식전환청구기간 동안 주식전환청구가 없으면 만기일에 권면액의 3분의 1만을 상환받는 조건이었던 사실, 한편 나라종금은 1999. 9. 30. 기준의 잔존원금 4,247,974,504원과 1999. 10. 1. 이후의 지연손해금 채권을 피보전권리로 하여 피고가 한국산업은행에 예치한 원금 50억 원의 예금 채권에 대하여 2000. 4.경 피고로부터 질권을 설정받았으며, 그 후 2001. 6. 28. 금 59,671,595원을 변제받아 원금에 충당하였고, 피고가 2001. 8. 8. 정리절차개시결정을 받자 원금 4,188,302,909원(금 4,247,974,504원 - 금 59,671,595원), 지연손해금 1,491,398,804원, 합계 금 5,679,701,713원의 채권 중 위 예금채권에 질권이 설정된 금 5,364,504,441원(예금원금 5,000,000,000원 + 예금이자 금 364,504,441원)을 정리담보권으로, 나머지 금 315,197,272원을 정리채권으로 신고하였으나 정리회사는 채권조사기일에 이를 전액 부인하였던 사실을 인정한 다음, 위 인정 사실에 의하면 원고는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고에 대하여 잔존 구상금채권의 원리금 5,679,701,713원 중 위 질권 설정된 금 5,364,504,441원의 정리담보권, 나머지 금 315,197,272원의 정리채권 및 각 위와 같은 금액의 의결권이 있다고 하고, 주채무자인 세계물산이 2002. 9. 27. 원고에게 구상금채권의 잔존 원금 4,188,302,909원 중 금 3,551,106,734원을 변제하고 나머지 금 637,196,175원을 전환사채로 대물변제하였으므로 주채무가 전액 소멸하였고 이에 따라 피고의 보증채무도 모두 소멸하였다는 주장에 대하여는, 세계물산이 원고에게 금 3,551,106,734원을 현금으로 변제한 사실은 인정되나, 나머지 금 637,196,175원을 전환사채로 대물변제하였다는 부분에 대하여 보면, 전환사채는 그 성질상 발행 회사가 여전히 부담하는 차용금 등 채무로서 다만 사채 인수권자에게 나중에 사채를 발행회사의 주식으로 전환할 수 있는 권리만을 부여한 것에 불과할 뿐만 아니라, 위 전환사채는 그 만기가 2011. 2. 22.이고 그 때까지의 이자율은 0%이며, 전환가격이 15,000원이지만 주식전환 청구 기간 동안 주식전환 청구가 없으면 사채권의 만기일에 권면액의 3분의 1만을 상환받는 조건으로 발행된 사정에 비추어 보면 비록 원고가 세계물산의 정리절차의 일환으로 위와 같은 전환사채를 인수하였다고 하더라도 위 구상금채권에 대한 연대보증인인 피고에 대한 관계에 있어서 확정적으로 변제되었다고 할 수는 없다는 이유로, 결국 피고의 이 부분 주장은 금 3,551,106,734원을 지급하였다는 부분에 한하여 이유 있으므로, 피고는 금 2,128,594,979원(금 5,679,701,713원 - 금 3,551,106,734원)의 정리담보권 및 같은 금액의 의결권이 있다고 판단하였다.

Article 240 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "the plan shall not affect any rights held by reorganization creditors or security holders against guarantors or other persons who assume obligations together with the company, and any security provided by those other than the company for reorganization creditors or security holders." However, where the reorganization claims or securities (hereinafter referred to as "resolution claims") are to substitute for the payment of all or part of reorganization claims or securities through conversion into investment issued by the method of issuing new stocks in the reorganization plan, and "resolution creditors" shall refer to both reorganization claims and security holders, respectively, as of the date when the issuance of new stocks takes place, it may be deemed that the principal obligation of the reorganization company is substantially satisfied with respect to the amount equivalent to the market price of new stocks acquired by the reorganization creditors as of the date when the issuance of new stocks takes place, and thus, the guaranteed obligation shall also be deemed extinguished at the time of exercise of the guaranteed obligation, apart from the fact that there is no special circumstance that the reorganization creditors or security holders acquire the new stocks at the time of exercise of the guaranteed obligation, it shall not be deemed that the reorganization creditors or security creditors still acquire the amount equivalent to the amount of such bonds.

In light of the records, although the judgment of the court below is inadequate, the decision of the court below that the guaranteed liability is not extinguished only when the total amount of face value of convertible bonds issued through debt-equity swap or equivalent to its market value is reasonable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, omission of judgment or inconsistent reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. In addition, in light of the records, even though the defendant alleged that interest 128,238,73 won after the commencement of reorganization proceedings in the global real estate industry, which is the principal debtor, was repaid in cash together with the remaining principal 3,51,106,734 won, the court below did not make any decision on the amount of interest redemption, but Article 108 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "where several persons are liable to perform all or some of them, a creditor may exercise his right as a reorganization creditor in each reorganization proceeding with respect to the total amount of the claim held at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, if reorganization proceedings are commenced in the company which is the principal debtor, the creditor may exercise his right as a reorganization creditor with respect to the total amount of the claim held at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, and this provision is also applicable mutatis mutandis in cases of securities under Article 123 (2) of the same Act, and it is still unlawful for the plaintiff to receive dividends from another debtor or to receive reimbursement from another creditor with respect to the whole amount of the claim at the time of the reorganization proceedings commenced.

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal, including misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in claim

In light of the records, since the principal and interest of the security of this case have been fully repaid through the issuance of convertible bonds and cash redemption, the plaintiff did not make a separate judgment as to the defendant's assertion that the claim of this case should be dismissed because there is no legal interest to obtain a judgment. However, since the defendant's guarantee obligation is not extinguished all, the judgment of the court below which accepted part of the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it can be viewed that the judgment of the court below which rejected the above claim contains a judgment of rejection of the above claim. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest

3. 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.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)