beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The effect of interruption of prescription under Article 5 of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter “former Company Reorganization Act”) due to participation in the company reorganization procedure shall also extend to the surety obligation whose principal obligation covers the company’s obligation as the reorganization company’s principal obligation, and its effect shall remain in force as far as the exercise of the right to participate in the reorganization procedure continues (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da42141, Nov. 10, 1998). Meanwhile, where the main obligation is wholly or partially exempted or reduced by the reorganization plan is reduced, the obligee’s exercise of the right at the time of the reorganization procedure is terminated as at the time when the decision to approve the reorganization plan becomes final and conclusive, and the extinctive prescription of the surety obligation corresponding thereto shall resume from
However, if the principal obligation remains due to the reorganization program, the effect of interruption of prescription by participation in the reorganization program shall be maintained, and if the decision on abolition or termination of the reorganization program becomes final and conclusive and the exercise of rights in the reorganization program is terminated, the extinctive prescription of the guaranteed obligation which has been interrupted from
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11231 Decided May 31, 2007, etc.). According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.
(1) On March 12, 1997, the Taesan Mutual Savings and Finance Company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Taesan Mutual Savings and Finance Company”) entered into a bill transaction agreement with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) with the borrowed amount of KRW 700,000,000 per annum, 17% per annum, and 19% per annum, and lent KRW 70,000 to B under the pretext of discount of bill.
(2) The defendant shall make a loan of this case to the Taesan Treasury on the same day.