[1] In a case where a reorganization plan is approved, whether the method or order of satisfaction of a reorganization claim is determined according to the contents of the reorganization plan (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since the meaning of the provision that "joint and several surety obligations provided by the reorganization company for another person shall be repaid by the principal debtor or by the disposal of the secured goods provided by the principal debtor" under the reorganization plan does not exclude repayment from a third party under the reorganization plan, or payment from the secured goods provided by a third party, and unless such payment is excluded, the guaranteed obligations of the reorganization company cannot be deemed as final and conclusive merely because the decision to discontinue the bankruptcy of the principal debtor becomes final and conclusive

[1] Article 242 (1) of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) provides that the rights of reorganization creditors, security holders, and stockholders shall be changed according to the provisions of the reorganization plan when the approval of the reorganization plan is made. This provision provides that the rights of reorganization creditors, etc. shall be changed substantially according to the contents of the reorganization plan. Thus, the method and order of appropriation of the reorganization claim shall also be determined according to the contents of the reorganization plan.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the reorganization company's guaranteed obligation provision of the reorganization program provides that, in case where the reorganization program provides that "a joint and several surety obligation which the reorganization company provided for another person shall be paid preferentially by the principal debtor or by disposal of the secured goods provided by the principal debtor," the reorganization company's guaranteed obligation shall be paid preferentially by the principal debtor in accordance with the practical practices at which the repayment conditions of principal obligation and guaranteed obligation are differentiated, and the reorganization company's guaranteed obligation shall not be paid by the principal debtor through reorganization proceedings or bankruptcy proceedings against the principal debtor after the repayment of the principal obligation and guaranteed obligation shall be determined as guaranteed obligation, and it does not exclude the repayment of the secured goods provided by a third party under the reorganization program or the secured goods provided by a third party, and unless such payment is excluded, the guaranteed obligation of the reorganization company shall not be determined merely on the ground that a decision to discontinue the bankruptcy against the principal debtor

[1] Article 242 (1) of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005), Articles 476, 477, and 479 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 211 of the former Company Reorganization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005), Article 242 (1) (see current Article 252 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20964 delivered on March 14, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 974)

The administrator of Nasan Co., Ltd. and the administrator of Nasan Co., Ltd. and the administrator of Nasan Co., Ltd. and the administrator of Nasan Co., Ltd. and the administrator of Nasan Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

SP Asset-backed Specialized Company (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Seo Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na29982 decided September 1, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

Article 242(1) of the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) provides that the rights of reorganization creditors, security holders, and stockholders shall be changed according to the provisions of the reorganization plan when the approval of the reorganization plan is decided. This provision provides that the rights of reorganization creditors, etc. shall be changed substantially according to the contents of the reorganization plan (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20964, Mar. 14, 2003). Thus, the method or order of appropriation of the reorganization claim shall also be determined according to the contents of the reorganization plan.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, "Order of Appropriation of Performance" Section 1 Section 4 of Chapter III of the original reorganization plan of this case provides that "the order of appropriation of performance to financial institutions, securities and reorganization claims by loan subjects and by principal and interest shall be governed by the financial institutions within the scope of the annual total amount of repayment," and the defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against 16 persons who received dividends in the auction procedure for Nasan department stores on December 27, 2007 against the Seoul Central District Court 2007No113675. The plaintiff paid 28,039,444,459 won to the defendant on April 13, 207 according to the amendment of the reorganization plan of this case, and based on the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 207 No. 113675, Apr. 13, 2007, the remaining amount of the above repayment amount was adjusted in proportion to the principal claims at the time of payment of each of the reorganization claims of this case, the defendant was determined to be 4307.14.

Therefore, in the complaint of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the defendant submitted the "detailed status table by claim" with the content that the repayment amount as of April 13, 2007 was divided and appropriated in proportion to the principal of the claim at the time, and the judgment was pronounced and finalized, and the defendant determined that the repayment amount as of April 13, 2007 was divided and appropriated in proportion to the principal of the claim at the time in accordance with Section 1 Section 4(c) of the original reorganization plan of this case as of April 13, 2007 (the defendant asserted the above purport in the reference document submitted by the court below).

Therefore, according to Section 1, Section 4, Section 3, Section 1, Section 4, Section 3 of the original reorganization plan of this case, which must be complied with prior to the payment of the legal appropriation of payment, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff paid 25.9 billion won to the plaintiff on April 13, 2007, was divided and appropriated in proportion to the principal amount of each reorganization claim of this case at the time of payment, is not erroneous in its conclusion. The plaintiff's ground

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In light of the provisions on the guaranteed obligation of the original reorganization plan of this case and the provisions on future indemnity, the court below held that the provision on the guaranteed obligation of the original reorganization plan of this case, i.e., "joint and several surety obligations provided by the reorganization company for others shall be repaid by priority from the principal debtor or by disposing of the secured goods provided by the principal debtor," and that the reorganization claim of this case, which is a guaranteed obligation, shall be repaid by priority from the principal debtor in accordance with the practice that treats the repayment conditions of the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation differently from the principal debtor in the reorganization procedure, shall be paid by priority from the principal debtor in accordance with the practice that treats the repayment conditions of the principal obligation and the guaranteed obligation in the reorganization procedure, and that the plaintiff shall not be paid by the principal debtor in accordance with the reorganization procedure or the bankruptcy procedure of the principal debtor, and that such interpretation of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38300 Decided April 26,

In addition, the court below held that, since the auction procedure for Nasan department stores had already been in progress, there was a possibility of repayment from the secured goods provided from Nasan distribution, a joint guarantor, and as long as such repayment is not excluded, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's guaranteed liability against the defendant is confirmed merely because the decision to discontinue the bankruptcy of Nasan case, a principal debtor, became final and conclusive. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)