[1] In cases where a creditor’s right is forfeited under Article 241 of the Company Reorganization Act, whether the reorganization creditor, etc.’s right to secure another’s property against a guarantor or a surety pursuant to Article 240(2) of the same Act is not affected (affirmative)

[2] In the event a company reorganization procedure has commenced for a truster after the truster had the trustee completed the registration of establishment of a collateral on the trusted real estate for his/her own debt security, whether the security right on the trusted real estate held by the reorganization creditor against the trustee or the secured claim is affected by the reorganization plan or the forfeiture of the reorganization claim or security (negative)

[3] The meaning of "the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment under Article 145 of the Company Reorganization Act"

[4] Where the list of reorganization creditors becomes final and conclusive without raising any objection to the claim that existed as at the date of claim inspection, whether the existence of the claim can be contested by again exercising the right to set aside and seeking nullification of the entry in the list of reorganization creditors (negative)

[1] The main text of Article 241 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that when the reorganization plan is approved, the company shall be exempted from liability for all reorganization claims and securities except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the plan or the same Act. Meanwhile, Article 240 (2) of the same Act provides that the reorganization plan does not affect any rights held by reorganization creditors or security holders against the guarantor or security holders of the company and other persons who bear obligations together with the company, and any security offered by any person other than the company for the reorganization creditors or security holders. This provision provides that even if the company's obligations are discharged or changed in accordance with the reorganization plan, the obligations of the guarantor or security right holder shall not be exempted or changed. In this context, the "security provided by any person other than the company for the reorganization creditors or security holders" refers to a security right held by the reorganization creditors, etc. as a security right held in the company's property of a third party. In light of the purport of Article 240 (2) of the same Act, even if an obligee's rights have been forfeited pursuant to the provisions of Article 241 of the same Act, it does not affect any rights against the right holder or guarantor.

[2] If a truster concludes a real estate management trust agreement with a trustee for his own real estate and completes a registration of transfer of ownership on the trust property in the future and subsequently, had the trustee complete a registration of transfer of ownership on the trust real estate within and outside the country, and then had the trustee complete a registration of transfer of ownership on the trust real estate again for the truster's creditor's claims, the trustee will eventually have the same status as the truster's property for the truster, and if a company reorganization procedure for the truster has commenced thereafter, the creditor's security right, such as collateral, etc. against the trust real estate constitutes "security provided for the reorganization creditor or security holder" under Article 240 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, and the reorganization plan cannot affect this conclusion. In addition, even if the creditor fails to file a report within the reorganization claim reporting period, the forfeited right is limited to the reorganization claim or security held by the truster, and there is no influence on the security right to the trust real estate and the secured claim.

[3] The purport of the entry of the tables of reorganization creditors and security holders regarding reorganization claims and security for which Article 145 of the Company Reorganization Act becomes final and conclusive, is that the amount of such reorganization claims and security rights as stated in the tables of reorganization creditors and security holders is the basis for exercising the right by the interested parties in the process of reorganization proceedings up to the preparation and authorization of reorganization programs, and is the basis for the exercise of voting rights in the meeting of interested parties. The same effect as that of a final and conclusive judgment under the above Article of the above Act is nothing more than the meaning that the exercise of voting rights has the effect of confirmation, not res judicata, and it is not confirmed that a claim already extinguished becomes final and conclusive without objection and it is not confirmed that there is a claim arising therefrom, and if it is obvious error, it may be corrected by the decision of correction by the reorganization court, and if not, it may be corrected by the decision of nullification.

[4] Where the reorganization creditor list becomes final and conclusive without any objection from the administrator, etc. as to the claim that existed as of the date of claim inspection, and the dispute becomes effective, the administrator shall be deemed as not being able to dispute the existence of the claim by exercising the right to set aside, and further, the administrator shall not be allowed to seek nullification on the validity of the entry in the reorganization creditor list which became final and conclusive as a reorganization claim on the premise that the legality of the exercise of the right to set aside ex post facto by the manager is acceptable.

[1] Articles 240(2) and 241 of the Company Reorganization Act / [2] Articles 240(2) and 241 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 1(2) of the Trust Act / [3] Article 145 of the Company Reorganization Act / [4] Articles 78, 144, and 145 of the Company Reorganization Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da1949 delivered on June 12, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1565), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da9267 delivered on July 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1854), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3122 delivered on July 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1919) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da9267 delivered on July 13, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1854), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da49484 delivered on December 26, 202 (Gong2003, 478) / [308] Supreme Court Decision 9Da19294 delivered on July 16, 199

Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ansan-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korean Industrial Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rops, Attorneys Choi Functional, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na23231 delivered on March 12, 2003

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was found to have been subject to 90 million won for the above 1,73,962, and the defendant was found to have been subject to 90 million won for the above 90-year company reorganization claim under the premise that the above 9-year company reorganization contract was invalid on the ground that the above 9-year company reorganization claim was not entered into for the above 90-year company reorganization claim under the premise that the above 9-year company reorganization claim was not entered into for 90 billion won for the above 9-year company reorganization claim under the premise that the above 9-year company reorganization claim was not entered into for 90 billion won for the above 9-year company reorganization claim under the premise that the above 9-year company reorganization claim was not entered into for the above 9-year company reorganization claim under the premise that the above 9-year company reorganization claim was not entered into for 90 billion won for the above 9-year company reorganization claim, and that the 9-year company was newly constructed for the above apartment claim.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the defendant only reported the above lease deposit claim among the above lease deposit claim against the Sungwon as reorganization claim, but did not report the above goods price claim as reorganization claim is just and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(1) The main text of Article 241 of the Company Reorganization Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that when the reorganization plan has been approved, the company shall be exempted from liability for all reorganization claims and securities except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the plan or the same Act. Meanwhile, Article 240 (2) of the Act provides that the reorganization plan does not affect any rights of reorganization creditors or security holders against a guarantor or a person who bears an obligation together with the company, and any security provided for a reorganization creditor or security holder for a reorganization creditor or security holder. This provision provides that even if the company's obligation is discharged or changed according to the reorganization plan, the obligation of a guarantor or a person who has pledged his/her obligation is not discharged or changed, "security provided for a reorganization creditor or security holder for a reorganization creditor or security holder" refers to a security right held on the company's property as a secured claim, and in light of the purport of Article 240 (2) of the Act, even if an obligee's right has been forfeited pursuant to Article 241 of the Act, it shall not affect the forfeited provision of Article 240.

Meanwhile, trust under the Trust Act requires a trustee to manage and dispose of property rights for the purpose of trust by transferring or disposing of a specific property right to a trustee (Article 1(2) of the Trust Act), so if the trustee completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future, the ownership inside and outside the trust shall be entirely transferred to the trustee, and if the ownership is reserved in the inside and outside the trust relationship with the truster, the trustee shall have the right to manage the trust property inside and outside the trust property as a result of the transfer of the ownership to the trustee. However, if the trustee fails to exercise the right to manage the trust property within the extent of the purpose of the trust within the scope of the trust, as stipulated in the trust contract, 200Da70460, April 12, 200). If the truster concludes a trust contract with the trustee for real estate owned by him and completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and if the trustee fails to exercise the right to the security right of the truster and the security right of the trustee again within the period of 200,000 won, the trustee shall not have any effect on the security right of the trust creditor.

Unless there are other special circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s rescission of the trust agreement, the trust agreement of this case between the Sungwon and the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent trust under Article 8 of the Trust Act, or the Plaintiff’s rescission of the trust agreement, as to this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s interest can still be asserted against the Plaintiff under Article 240(2) of the Act.

(2) Meanwhile, the purport of the provision that Article 145 of the Act provides that the amount of reorganization claims and securities stated in the tables of reorganization creditors, security holders, and all stockholders shall be the basis for exercising voting rights in the process of reorganization proceedings until reorganization programs are prepared and authorized. It is merely that the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment mentioned in the above Article means that the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment in the above Act takes effect as a result of the exercise of voting rights in the process of reorganization proceedings until reorganization programs are established and approved, and it is obvious that the claim already extinguished is not confirmed and entered in the list of reorganization creditors but as a result, if it is obvious error, it can be corrected by the decision of the reorganization court to correct it, and if so, it can be corrected with the decision of nullification if it is not so finalized (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da4096, Dec. 10, 1991). However, according to the reasoning of the court below, the claim inspection date of the defendant's defense against the reorganization creditors is no longer effective at the time it becomes final and conclusive as the claim inspection date of this case.

In addition, even if the existence of a claim for lease deposit reported by the defendant as a reorganization claim is denied due to such exercise of the right to set aside, and the entry in the list of reorganization creditors was declared null and void due to such exercise of the right to set aside, such judgment does not naturally affect this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, claiming whether the establishment of the mortgage of this case, which is the secured claim, is cancelled or not. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated further on the existence of the claim for lease deposit of this case against the defendant's sexual origin by taking into account the legality of the exercise of the right to set aside by the custodian in the claim for the cancellation of the right to set aside a mortgage of this case, notwithstanding the above final and conclusive judgment and the validity of the reorganization creditors' list as to the claim for the right to set aside a lease deposit of this case. If it is impossible to recognize the validity of such right to set aside, the defendant's lease deposit of this case also remains valid as the secured claim of this case,

(3) Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s claim for the instant goods price and lease deposit claims, which are secured by the instant right to collateral security, are valid in all, barring any special circumstances between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be ordered to cancel the registration of establishment of the instant right on the ground of extinguishment or invalidation of the right. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the existence of the secured obligation under the right to collateral security, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)