beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the rehabilitation plan does not affect any right held by any rehabilitation creditor or any rehabilitation secured creditor against the guarantor of the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced (hereinafter referred to as "bankruptcy debtor") and other persons who bear obligations together with the debtor for whom the rehabilitation procedure has commenced.
However, in cases where it is prescribed in the rehabilitation plan for the rehabilitation debtor, who is the principal debtor, to convert the amount of debt into a debt in lieu of repayment of all or part of rehabilitation claims or rehabilitation security rights, the surety obligation of the debtor of the rehabilitation debtor shall be deemed to have been repaid the amount of debt equivalent to the appraised amount of the rehabilitation claims, etc. within the scope of the amount of the rehabilitation claims, etc.
(1) Article 20 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da12703, 12710, Jan. 10, 2003; 2014Da25054, Sept. 21, 2017). This legal doctrine applies likewise to cases where an endorser who has endorsed a promissory note issued by a debtor for rehabilitation refuses to pay the promissory note, thereby bearing obligations under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act (see, e.g., payment or reimbursement of the amount).
2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.
(A) On August 10, 2011, one Twitter Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “One Twitter Day”) issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 111,100,000 and the due date on December 5, 2011 to the Plaintiff.
(B) On August 11, 201, the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from drawing up a protest for non-payment.