2011timely 8 Rehabilitation

1.400 (0000-0000) DO0)

Seoul Songpa-gu O0-dong OO000 OO00 OOO00

2.400 (0000-00-000)

OOOOOOOOOO

Attorney Park Jong-young, Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant

OOO0

Note OOOOOOOO

Attorney Lee Dong-hee

May 6, 2011

All of the petitioners' applications in this case are dismissed.

The rehabilitation procedures shall commence for the principal of the case (hereinafter referred to as the "debtor company").

1. Basic facts

(a) Summary of the debtor company;

(1) The debtor company was established on December 24, 1974 and its name changed on July 5, 1994 with the name of the company as of July 5, 1994. It is an unlisted company of 2,853,385,00 won in paid-in capital, the main business purpose of which is crypt processing and sales business, original parts, and sales business, etc.

(2) The status and relation of the applicant, the shareholder status of the debtor company, etc. are as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

A person shall be appointed.

(b) composition procedures.

(1) From 2002 to 2003, the debtor company raised approximately KRW 25 billion for the new construction cost of a original automatic slaughterhouse, approximately KRW 16 billion for the purchase cost of the 'astronomical tent and the nive nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives nives

(2) Accordingly, on January 5, 2004, the debtor company filed an application for commencement of composition procedures under this Court No. 2004 1, and received a commencement decision on February 4, 2004.

(3) The composition condition submitted by the debtor company was rejected on April 26, 2004 on the first day of the meeting of creditors, which was set forth in Article 53(1) of the former Composition Act, and Article 278(1)3 of the former Bankruptcy Act). However, the composition condition was resolved on May 31, 2004 on the first day of the meeting of creditors.

(4) However, on May 19, 2004, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, which was the largest creditor of the debtor company, filed an application for an auction to exercise the security right on the site and building of the factory, which is the core business facilities of the debtor company, by the court 2004ta-28564, 28571, and this court accepted the above application on May 24, 2004 and started the auction procedure;

(5) As long as the auction procedure is in progress with respect to the core business facilities of the debtor company, this court decided not to authorize composition by applying Article 55 Subparag. 4 of the former Composition Act on the ground that the debtor company would not have any possibility of performing the conditions of composition by making the debtor company pay operating income as repayment resources.

(6) On July 21, 2004, the debtor company filed a complaint with the Gwangju High Court No. 2004Ra39 on July 21, 2004 pursuant to Article 57(1)5 of the former Composition Act. The ○○○○○ Federation withdrawn the above application for auction on March 14, 2005 while the appeal is pending.

(7) Accordingly, the Gwangju High Court revoked the decision not to authorize the above composition on March 17, 2005, and remanded the case to this court again, and this court decided to authorize composition on April 1, 2005.

(8) The main contents of the terms of composition authorized by the debtor company are as follows.

○ Total amount of debt

Composition Claim KRW 52.5 billion, approximately KRW 31.2 billion, and the right of separation

○ Of creditors of non-financial institutions, creditors of hatcheries, transportation and shipment costs

Principal: Performance in equal installments by 25 percent for four years from 2004 to 2007

Interest prior to commencement, interest after commencement: All exemption;

○ Creditors of non-financial institutions (other than creditors of hatcheries, transportation costs, and shipment costs)

Principal and interest before commencement: Performance in equal installments by 12.5% for 8 years from 2009 to 2016 after a five-year grace period;

interest after commencement: 2% per annum from 2009 after five years' grace period;

○ Creditor of the Financial Institution (including where the exercise of the right to separate action is waived and a composition claim is exercised)

Principal and interest before commencement: Performance in equal installments by 12.5% for 8 years from 2009 to 2016 after a five-year grace period;

interest after commencement: 2% per annum from 2009 after five years' grace period;

(9) From 2004 to 2008, the debtor company did not repay approximately KRW 12.3 billion of the estimated repayment on the date of 2009, the first repayment date, which became due after the lapse of five (5) years prescribed under the composition conditions, to the creditors of financial institutions and non-financial institutions (except for creditors of hatcheries, transportation costs, and shipment costs).

(10) On January 8, 2010, the debtor company filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with this Court 2010 Gohap1, and on the other hand, the debtor company filed an application for commencement of composition proceedings with this Court on January 19, 2010.

(11) On February 4, 2010, this Court rendered a decision to revoke composition by applying Article 68(2) of the former Composition Act on the ground that the debtor neglects to fulfill the conditions of composition without justifiable grounds and the debtor has no intent or ability to fulfill the conditions of composition in the future. The above decision was announced on the same day and became final and conclusive February 18, 2010.

(c) Rehabilitation procedures and bankruptcy procedures;

(1) On March 8, 2010, after the decision to revoke the above composition became final and conclusive, the court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the debtor company (hereinafter referred to as the "first rehabilitation procedure") and appointed the applicant Na○ and the non-applicant Kim-○ as a joint manager.

(2) Under the first rehabilitation procedure, the first date of the meeting of interested persons for the resolution of the rehabilitation plan was scheduled on September 8, 2010. However, the joint manager of the debtor company applied for the postponement of the date to the court on October 6, 2010 on the ground that he/she failed to obtain the consent meeting requirements for the resolution under Article 237 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act from the creditors around the above date, and the above date was postponed on October 6, 2010. The joint manager of the debtor company applied for the postponement of the date again on the same ground on October 6, 2010, and the date was postponed on November 10. 201.

(3) However, at the meeting of interested persons held on November 10, 2010, the rehabilitation proposal submitted by the debtor company at the meeting of interested persons held on the end of the two postponements was rejected.

(4) The joint manager of the debtor company applied for the designation of the continuation date at the above meeting of interested persons, and this court designated the continuation date on December 8, 2010 with the consent of creditors as provided by Article 238 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

(5) However, the above rehabilitation plan was rejected on December 8, 2010 by obtaining the consent of rehabilitation secured creditor group 65.85%) and rehabilitation creditor group 48.23%. On the same day, this court made a decision to abolish the rehabilitation procedure in accordance with Article 286(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and announced the same.

(6) At the continuation date of the above meeting of interested persons, the result of aggregating the voting rights of rehabilitation secured creditor group:

(E2)

A person shall be appointed.

(7) Meanwhile, on December 15, 2010, when the joint manager of the debtor company filed an immediate appeal against the above decision to abolish the rehabilitation procedure, he filed an application for the so-called collaborative bankruptcy with respect to the debtor company under Article 6(2)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as the court 2010Hahap13, pursuant to Article 6(2)2 of the same Act.

(8) On December 23, 2010, the date on which the above abolition decision became final and conclusive, the court accepted the above application and declared bankruptcy against the debtor company, and appointed attorneys Lee ○, and full-time ○ as co-trustee in bankruptcy.

(9) On December 29, 2010, the joint bankruptcy trustee of the debtor company filed an application for permission to continue the debtor company's business with this court under Article 486 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and on December 30, 2010, the debtor company continues its business with the permission.

(10) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 23, 2010, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred all of the claims against the debtor company to ○○○○○○○○○○○ and 18 Specialized Asset-backed Securitization Company. On February 7, 2011, ○○○○○○○○ Company transferred the said claims from the said limited liability company, and on March 11, 2011, filed an application for an auction to exercise a security right on the site and building of the factory owned by the debtor company as the court around 2011, around 7176, and the auction procedure is in progress.

(11) On March 2, 2011, joint trustees in bankruptcy of the debtor company filed an application for resignation with this court and obtained the permission of this court on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition: Records of this case and the applicant of this Court, the representative director of the debtor company, and the result of examination of the bankrupt company]

2. Applicant's assertion

A debtor company is now going into bankruptcy proceedings due to the abolition of the rehabilitation proceedings, but the continuing corporate value exceeds the liquidation value, and is running business with the permission of the court in the above bankruptcy proceedings. If the rehabilitation proceedings are resumed due to the improvement of the business environment and the substantial increase in operating income, a considerable amount of the debt can be repaid with its operating income. Accordingly, the debtor company seeks to commence the rehabilitation proceedings once again.

3. Determination as to whether it conforms to the general interest of creditors;

A. General theory

Rehabilitation procedures may also commence for a debtor under bankruptcy proceedings (see, e.g., Articles 35 and 58(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act).

However, in the event that rehabilitation procedures commence with respect to a debtor, but the rehabilitation procedures are abolished as a result of the rejection of the rehabilitation plan and an application is filed for commencement of the rehabilitation procedures while the rehabilitation procedures are in progress, even if the rehabilitation plan is accepted and the rehabilitation procedures are resumed, the rehabilitation procedures cannot be discontinued if the rehabilitation procedures are re-scheduled and the rehabilitation plan is rejected, and the rehabilitation procedures are interrupted following the resumption of the rehabilitation procedures. However, in such a case, the realization and distribution of the bankrupt foundation is delayed during the period of suspension of the bankruptcy procedures which were in progress as soon as possible, and the exercise of the right to separation by the holder of the right to separate settlement is restricted (10). It is only a disadvantageous result on the creditor, such as reducing the debtor's financial resources required for the debtor's funds in the resumed rehabilitation procedures, and reducing the

Therefore, if a rehabilitation plan is abolished due to the rejection of the rehabilitation plan and an application is filed for the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure again against an unqualified person while the rehabilitation procedure is in progress, it shall be clearly explained that the debtor's corporate value should exceed the liquidation value, and if the rehabilitation procedure is resumed, there is a change in circumstances that may be resolved differently from the previous one, and it is not suitable for the general interest of creditors to resume the rehabilitation procedure easily without a clear explanation therefor.

In particular, in the case of this case, 11012 during the period of 're-style bankruptcy procedure' that has reached about 6 years and 11 months of the debtor company, 11012) the debtor company failed to successfully perform the reorganization procedure, and only 'OOOOOOOOOOOOOO' filed an application for auction to exercise the security right as seen above in the bankruptcy procedure No. 2010Hahap13 of the court of this case, which is the 're-established bankruptcy procedure' that has reached about 6 years and 11 months of the debtor company. Considering this, in determining whether to commence the rehabilitation procedure once again, the above circumstances should be examined as more important factors.

(2) Whether change in circumstances is changed

Therefore, I first examine the change in the situation of rehabilitation secured creditor 14.

In the first rehabilitation procedure, the facts that ○○ Comprehensive Financial Securities Co., Ltd., ○○○ Bank, the principal food company ○○ Bank, and ○○ Bank, among rehabilitation secured creditors, did not consent to the rehabilitation proposal of the debtor company are as mentioned above.

However, as a result of this court's discussion on the creditor's opinion, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc., which is the number of claims for ○○○ comprehensive financial securities), and ○○○○○○○, Inc., a transferee prior to the claims of ○○○○○○○ Bank, respectively, submitted a written opinion that "it is anticipated that the rehabilitation plan will be rejected even if ○○○○○○○ will resume the rehabilitation procedure against the debtor company, since ○○○○○, a corporation prior to the claims of ○○○○○○○○○○○ Bank, will resume the rehabilitation procedure."

Rather, as seen earlier, ○○○○ Bank agreed to the rehabilitation plan of the debtor company as a rehabilitation secured creditor in the first rehabilitation procedure. On March 28, 2011, the above ○○○○○○ Bank acquired all the claims against the debtor company of the above ○○○ Bank on March 30, 2011, and submitted a written opinion that “I wish to object to the resumption of the debtor company’s rehabilitation procedure, and to the realization under the bankruptcy procedure.” Furthermore, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○ was present at the representative on April 4, 2011 at the hearing of the court, and purchased the claims against the debtor company in order to enter the distribution business of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○ purchased the debtor company’s claims in order to enter the rehabilitation procedure for the debtor company, regardless of the content of the rehabilitation plan.”

In light of the aforementioned trends of rehabilitation secured creditors, in a case where rehabilitation procedures are resumed with respect to the debtor company only with the materials submitted by the applicants, it is difficult to deem that the change of circumstances occurred in the rehabilitation secured creditor’s meeting the consent requirement under Article 237 subparag. 2 (a) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, insofar as the consent meeting the requirements

The following rehabilitation creditors shall be deemed the group of rehabilitation creditors:

In the first rehabilitation procedure, the consent ratio of the rehabilitation creditor's rehabilitation plan is 48.23% prior to the rehabilitation creditor's 48.23%, which is about 18% of the total amount of the voting rights of the rehabilitation creditor's 2/3 or more of the rehabilitation creditor's consent, which is the requirement for a resolution under Article 237.1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

In addition, at the time of the first rehabilitation procedure, the ○○ Bank, a stock company, held 13.32% of the total amount of voting rights of rehabilitation creditors, and the above 48.23% consent rate was calculated including the consent of the above ○ Bank. As seen earlier, the above ○○○○ Bank, a credit transferee company of the above ○○ Bank, expressed its intention to oppose the debtor company, regardless of the contents of the rehabilitation plan, when the rehabilitation procedure is re-scheduled.

In light of the above, it is difficult to see that the data submitted by the applicants alone has clearly explained that the change in the situation occurred in the rehabilitation creditor.

(3) Claimant's assertion and determination

With respect to this, the applicants claim that the rehabilitation plan can be passed since the rehabilitation procedure can be submitted more favorable rehabilitation plan than the first rehabilitation procedure because the operating income of the debtor company has rapidly increased and the above operating income can be resumed for the debtor company.

However, as argued by the applicants for domestic affairs, even if the operating income of the debtor company has recently increased, as seen earlier, the defendant company ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, as seen earlier, have expressed in this court the intent to exercise the opposing voting right, regardless of the content of the rehabilitation proposal “if rehabilitation procedures are resumed against the debtor company,” and even according to the claimant’s assertion, the cause of the above increase in operating income is due to the massive destruction of originals in accordance with the government policy, and the price increase due to the above increase in operating income. Thus, the above increase in operating income is merely a temporary phenomenon based on the very exceptional circumstance, such as the "dics disposal of originals,” so it is difficult to conclude that the above increase in operating income of the debtor company continues to be accepted during the rehabilitation procedure at the same level as the debtor company, in light of the applicant’s recent decrease in operating income in the year 203, 206, and 2008.

In addition, the applicants asserted that the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure for the debtor company is compatible with the general interest of the creditors, on the grounds that the continuous corporate value of the debtor company exceeds the liquidation value, and that the recent increase in the operating income of the debtor company has increased.

However, if the value of the company's continuing business exceeds the liquidation value of the company, it is only the necessary condition for the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, not the sufficient condition (if the above argument is reasonable, it would result in the conclusion that the company should commence the rehabilitation procedure whenever the value of the company's continuing business exceeds the liquidation value) and the first argument is not acceptable.

In addition, in a case where an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings is filed against a debtor under bankruptcy proceedings as in this case, either of the bankruptcy proceedings and rehabilitation proceedings shall be examined as to whether it conforms to the general interests of creditors. In this case, the benefit gained by a creditor under bankruptcy proceedings means the benefit that creditors gain in the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. This means that where a bankruptcy trustee continues to conduct business with the permission of the court in the bankruptcy proceedings, the profit that creditors are entitled to receive dividends as dividends should be included as a matter of course in the bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, the second argument cannot be a sufficient reason to readily conclude that it conforms to the general interests of creditors rather than in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Therefore, the above assertion by the applicants is without merit.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

In the end, in case of resumption of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor company, it is not appropriate for the general interests of creditors to resume rehabilitation procedures in the present state where it is not clearly explained that there is a change in circumstances that can be resolved, unlike the first rehabilitation procedure, in the case of resumption of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor company.

4. Conclusion

If so, pursuant to Article 42 subparagraph 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, all applications for the commencement of the rehabilitation of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

May 6, 2011

Masungwon (Presiding Judge)

An enzymmetrics

Magjin-ho

1) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) is repealed.

2) Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) was repealed.

3) Article 53 of the former Composition Act (Mutatis Mutandis application of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Assembly) (1) Article 162, Article 165, proviso of Article 211, proviso of the Bankruptcy Act

The provisions of Articles 273, 278 and 279 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the meeting of creditors.

Article 278 (Requirements for Resolution on Compulsory Composition) (1) An appearance to exercise voting rights upon the resolution of compulsory composition shall be made.

A majority of the bankruptcy creditors who make a report on the amount of claims is more than 3/4 of the total amount of claims of the bankruptcy creditors.

consent shall be required.

4) The court of Article 55 of the former Composition Act (if a decision not to authorize composition may be made) shall be limited to any of the following cases:

or upon the application of composition creditor, the disapproval of composition may be decided ex officio or upon the application of composition creditor.

4. If a resolution of composition is contrary to the general interest of composition creditors.

5) Article 57 (Immediate Appeal) (1) of the former Composition Act may file an immediate appeal against the decision of approval or disapproval of composition.

6) Total amount of 28,858,239,265 Won 19,02,010,592

7) Total amount of 94,870,760,946 Won 45,752,802,166

8) Article 244(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for the protection of rights even where a rehabilitation plan has been rejected.

The so-called ‘involuntary approval' system which provides for the so-called ‘involuntary approval' system, but the ‘involuntary approval' is at least a claim.

Self-Governing one Article not only requires that the draft rehabilitation plan be resolved, but also the system exceptionally applied is MeuM

Ro-, other than the discussion.

19)see Articles 7(1)2 and 58(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

10) See Articles 141(1) and (2), 131, 411, and 412 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

11) Generally, a bankruptcy proceeding is a reorganization of the debtor’s business and distributes income accrued therefrom to the creditor.

be liquidation-type procedures and debtor's assets promptly disposed of and liquidated and distributed to creditors;

The rehabilitation procedure under Part II of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the company reorganization procedure, the old company reorganization procedure under the old Company Reorganization Act, the old company reorganization

proceeding, etc. under the laws belongs to a reconstruction proceeding, and Part III bankruptcy proceeding, award, etc. under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act;

Liquidation procedures, etc. under the law belong to liquidation procedures.

12) The period of the progress of composition procedures is January 14, 2016 (from January 5, 2004, the date of decision on revocation of composition procedures becomes final and conclusive as of January 5, 2010).

18. Until September 18, 2010) + The period of proceedings of the first rehabilitation procedure (from March 8, 2010 to the date on which the discontinuation decision becomes final and conclusive as of March 8, 2010.

12. up to 23.

13) Article 40(1) and (2) of the former Composition Act; Article 58(1), (2), and (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act;

Article 131. see, e., Article 131.

14) At present, the debtor company cannot be conceptualized as a rehabilitation secured creditor because the bankruptcy proceedings are in progress, but convenience.

Any rehabilitation secured creditor (or his/her assignee) at the time of the first rehabilitation procedure; hereinafter referred to as a rehabilitation secured creditor;

The holder also uses it in the same sense.

15) The date of acquisition of bonds February 21, 201