Where a security right is established on a third party's property concerning a reorganization claim, and whether an obligee's exercise of security right is legitimate

Where provisions of Article 112 of the Company Reorganization Act prevent any decrease in the assets of the reorganization company in order to achieve the purpose of the reorganization of the company, and the security right is established on the assets of a third party in regard to the reorganization claim, such creditor may obtain the satisfaction of claims by exercising such security right, regardless of the procedures for the reorganization of the company.

Article 112 of the Company Reorganization Act

Seoul Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd.

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 67Ra139 delivered on October 16, 1967

The reappeal is dismissed.

No. 1 of the grounds for re-appeal

According to Article 112 of the Company Reorganization Act, the company reorganization claim shall not be repaid without reorganization proceedings, repaid, or extinguished (excluding exemption) with respect to the reorganization claim except for specific exceptions to the claim for tax, etc., but the purpose of the Company Reorganization Act is to prevent all or part of the corporate organization of the company, i.e., the reorganization reorganization reorganization case of the company, i., the physical existence, and the dissolution of the company. According to Article 67 of the Company Reorganization Act, if the commencement of reorganization procedure is decided, an auction, etc. pursuant to the Auction Act for the company's property shall not be conducted, and the auction procedure, etc. already conducted shall be suspended. In comparison with other provisions of the same Act, the above Article 112 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the company's property shall not be reduced without resorting to the reorganization procedure, and if a security right to the third party's property with respect to the reorganization claim is established, the creditor shall be able to obtain the satisfaction of the claim, regardless of the company reorganization procedure. Therefore, the decision of the original court below is justified.

No. 2 of the grounds for re-appeal

Even if the successful bid price is reduced compared to the market price, it is not only the result of legitimate auction procedure, but also the successful bid cannot be deemed an unfair juristic act, and the reason is not a legitimate re-appeal. Therefore, it is groundless to discuss.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro