[1] In a case where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal against the approval order of the rehabilitation plan and decided to revoke the approval order, the legal nature of the reappeal against it (=Immediate appeal)

[2] In a case where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal against the authorization decision of the rehabilitation plan and revoked the authorization decision and remanded to the first instance court, whether the order and reason should be publicly notified (affirmative)

[1] Article 247(1) and (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provide that an immediate appeal may be filed against a decision on whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan. In cases where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal against the decision on authorization of the rehabilitation plan and decided to revoke the decision on authorization, the reappeal against such decision constitutes an immediate appeal.

[2] Article 245(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that a court shall declare whether to grant authorization of a rehabilitation plan and publicly notify the order, summary of the grounds therefor, and the rehabilitation plan or summary thereof. This is to ensure the uniformity of the timing to prevent delay in rehabilitation procedures due to difficulties in delivery of the rehabilitation plan and to determine whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan, as the decision to determine whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan has an effect on many interested parties. This is to ensure the uniformity of the timing to prevent delay in rehabilitation procedures due to difficulties in delivery and to determine whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan. However, as in the decision to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan, as well as the decision to revoke authorization of the rehabilitation plan, the method of notifying the revocation of authorization of the rehabilitation plan is also applied mutatis mutandis to Article 245(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, in case where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal against the authorization decision of the rehabilitation plan and revoked the authorization decision, and remanded to the first instance court, the appellate court shall publicly notify the order and the summary of the reasons, and a person who has a legal interest in the above appellate court may re-appeal within 14 days from the date of public notice, and it is also allowed to re-appeal before public notice.

[1] Articles 13 and 247(1) and (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 13, 247(1) and (7), and 245(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 442 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2011Ma474 Decided June 29, 201 / [2] Supreme Court en banc Order 2014Ma667 Decided October 8, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 2159)

Medical Corporation, administrator and quasi-Review Applicant of the Deposit Insurance Foundation (Law Firm Tae & Yang LLC, Attorney Hong In-som, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Order 2015Ma1040 Decided July 17, 2015

An order subject to quasi-examination shall be revoked.

The grounds for quasi-examination shall be examined.

1. According to Article 13 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), a person who has an interest in a judgment under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act may file an immediate appeal only when otherwise provided in this Act. In cases where a public notice of judgment is given, an immediate appeal shall be filed within 14 days from the date of such public notice.

Article 247(1) and (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that an immediate appeal may be filed against a decision to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan. In cases where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal against a decision to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan and rendered a decision to revoke such authorization, the reappeal against the appeal also constitutes an immediate appeal (see Supreme Court Order 2011Ma474, Jun. 29, 201, etc.).

Meanwhile, Article 245(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that a court shall render a decision on whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan and publicly announce the order, the reasoning thereof, and the summary thereof. This is to ensure the uniformity of the timing to prevent delay in rehabilitation procedures due to the difficulty in delivery of the rehabilitation plan and to determine whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan, since the decision on whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan has a significant impact on many interested parties. However, as for the decision on whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan, it is also necessary to ensure the uniformity of the timing to determine whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the method of notifying the revocation of authorization of the rehabilitation plan is also analogically applied to Article 245(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act concerning the decision on whether to grant authorization of the rehabilitation plan.

Therefore, in a case where the appellate court accepted an immediate appeal as to the authorization decision of the rehabilitation plan and revoked the authorization decision, and remanded to the first instance court, the appellate court shall publicly notify the order and the summary of the grounds thereof. A person who has a legal interest in the above appellate court may file a reappeal within 14 days from the date of such public announcement, and a reappeal is also allowed before such public announcement (see Supreme Court en banc Order 2014Ma667, Oct. 8, 2014).

2. The record reveals the following facts.

A. On February 29, 2012, medical corporations, medical corporations, medical care foundations, medical care foundations, medical care foundations, filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Chuncheon District Court 2012 Joint-2. On May 7, 2012, the said court (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Court”) commenced rehabilitation procedures with respect to the said medical corporations and appointed quasi-examination applicants (hereinafter “applicants”) as managers.

B. On May 6, 2013, the rehabilitation court determined a provision on the protection of rights for the creation of rehabilitation secured creditors and decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan (hereinafter “instant authorization decision”), and publicly announced the same on May 8, 2013.

C. On May 22, 2013, the Republic of Korea Ef&A, a rehabilitation secured creditor, filed an immediate appeal against the instant authorization decision. The lower court (Seoul High Court) revoked the instant authorization decision on May 26, 2015 and rendered a decision to remand the instant case to the rehabilitation court (hereinafter “the lower court’s order”).

However, the original court only served the appellant and the applicant with the original judgment, and did not publicly notify the main text of the original judgment and the summary of the reasons.

D. On June 1, 2015, the applicant served an order issued by the lower court on June 1, 2015, and filed a reappeal with the lower court on June 15, 2015. On July 17, 2015, the instant court issued an order to dismiss the reappeal without determining whether the reappeal was filed after the lapse of the re-appeal period.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s order revoking the instant authorization decision of the rehabilitation court shall be notified publicly of the order and the summary of the reasoning. Since the lower court did not publicly notify this, the re-appeal filed by an applicant with legal interest in the lower court prior to such public notice shall be deemed lawful.

Therefore, it is deemed that there exists a ground for quasi-deliberation corresponding to “when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Order 2002Da753, Nov. 11, 2002).

4. Therefore, the order subject to quasi-examination is revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)