The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the suspension of litigation procedures and taking over of litigation procedures concerning reorganization claims, where a decision to commence corporate reorganization procedures has been made after

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interruption of litigation procedures and taking over of litigation procedures concerning reorganization claims, where a decision on commencing company reorganization procedures has been made after the

Articles 68, 149, and 152 of the Company Reorganization Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

○ ○○○, Attorney Kim Cal-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na5524 delivered on June 15, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

(1) On December 13, 1993, the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter the Plaintiff) and the Nonparty, who was the deceased Nonparty on the part of the Plaintiff and the appointed Nonparty, filed the instant lawsuit for damages on the ground that he died on February 4, 1994 during the treatment of dump trucks owned by Hanyang-gu Co., Ltd., and the first instance court decided the Defendant’s indication on October 14, 1994 as the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○, the first instance court rendered a partial favorable judgment against the Plaintiff and the appointed Nonparty, and the second instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the administrator of Hanyang-gu Co., Ltd., Ltd. took over the protective custodian of Hanyang-gu Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant’s indication on June 15, 1995, and the remaining part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was dismissed.

(2) Meanwhile, the record reveals the fact that there was a decision on November 17, 1994 to commence the company reorganization procedure for Hanyang, a corporation in the Seoul Special District Court prior to the conclusion of the pleadings in the original judgment. In the event the company reorganization procedure has commenced, litigation procedures concerning reorganization claims falling under property claims arising prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure shall be suspended in principle (Article 68 of the Company Reorganization Act). However, in a case where a lawsuit regarding reorganization claims is continued at the time of the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, where a reorganization creditor files a report to the competent court in the case involving the company reorganization, but has an objection to the interested party, but intends to request confirmation of such right, he/she shall file a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim with the competent court in the case involving the company reorganization procedure, instead of filing a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim with the court in which the previous lawsuit is pending, and request for continuation of litigation procedures against the objection to the reported reorganization claim (Article 149 of the Company Reorganization Act). In this case, particularly after the first final judgment, if there is a decision after the

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Hanyang, a reorganization claim under the Company Reorganization Act, which occurred before the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, is apparent, and is a reorganization claim arising from the cause arising before the company reorganization procedure commences. If there has been a decision to commence the company reorganization procedure for Hanyang, the court below should, in principle, suspend the litigation procedure. In order to continue the previous lawsuit by having ○○○○○○○ take over the litigation procedure for Hanyang, the court below should examine whether the Plaintiff’s report was made after the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure for Hanyang, and if there was an objection to the report, whether there was an objection, and if there was an objection, whether the request for continuation was made within a legitimate period from the investigation date on which the objection was stated. Accordingly, the court below should have examined whether the above administrator ○○○○ was legitimate. However, the judgment on the ground that the above administrator ○○○ took over the litigation procedure without examining and examining the above issue. Thus, the court below’s decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interruption of litigation procedure due to the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)