207 Substitute payments for another person 169495

A (62 years old, South)

Attorney Yoon Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Administrator of the Debtor Rehabilitation Corporation

1. B1

2. B2

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney credit rating

April 30, 2009

May 14, 2009

1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants, seeking KRW 27,895,536, which is entered in the table of rehabilitation creditors of the case No. 2008 Mahap1, the Busan District Court (2008 Mahap1), shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 60,791,072 won with 5% interest per annum from September 12, 2006 to the rendering of the instant judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment day.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 토목건축공사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 주식회사 (이하 '채무자 회사'라 한다)의 설비부 부장으로 근무하면서 2004. 11. 23.부터 2006. 9. 11.까지 채무자 회사가 자금난을 겪고 있는 상황에서 수행하고 있던 부산지하철 공사, 아파트 하자보수 업무 등과 관련하여 채무자 회사가 외근교통비용, 식대, 비품 구입비, 공증료, 차량 수리비 등으로 지급하여야 할 60,791,072원을 대신 지급하였고, 채무자 회사는 2006. 4.경 부도를 내었다. 한편 채무자 회사는 2008. 1. 18. 원고에게 500만원을 변제하였다. 나. 채무자 회사는 2008. 5. 19. 부산지방법원 2008 회합1호로 회생절차개시결정을 받고, 피고들이 공동관리인으로 선임되었으며, 2008. 12. 3. 회생계획인가결정을 받았다.다. 원고는 2008. 6. 9. 우선권 있는 회생채권으로 55,791,072원(= 지출액 60,791,072원 - 수령액 500만원)을 신고하였고, 법원은 원고가 신고한 위 회생채권을 개시전 이자 없이 원금 27,895,536원으로 변경하고 이를 개시 후 이자 없이 현금변제 하는 것으로 하는 회생계획을 인가하였고, 이에 따라 원고의 회생채권액 27,895,536원 이 회생채권자표에 기재되었으며, 그 무렵 위 회생계획 인가결정은 확정되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1 to 62, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

From November 23, 2004 to September 11, 2006, the Plaintiff spent expenses of the debtor company 60,791,072 to perform its duties on behalf of the debtor company. Article 38(1) of the Labor Standards Act recognizes the right to preferential payment of wages, accident compensation, and other claims arising from labor relations, and Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the " Debtor Rehabilitation Act") recognizes the right to preferential payment of the employee's wages, retirement allowances, accident compensation (paragraph 10), worker's deposit money and guarantee money (paragraph 11), and Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the " Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), the employee's deposit money and guarantee money arising from the cause that occurred prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (paragraph 11), and the provisions

In addition to the fixed costs (No. 14) that must be paid for the debtor. The plaintiff's claim against the debtor company due to the disbursement of expenses incurred in performing the above duties constitutes a claim based on a labor relationship under Article 38 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is an inevitable expense to be paid for the debtor under Article 179 (1) 14 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and thus, it can be paid from time to time. Thus, the defendants, who are joint management of the debtor company, who are co-management of the debtor company, seek damages for delay from September 12, 2006, which is the day following the last disbursement date.

As to this, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim against the debtor company is merely a rehabilitation claim and should be repaid according to the authorized rehabilitation plan.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that rehabilitation claims cannot be repaid without undergoing rehabilitation procedures, public-interest claims may be repaid from time to time without undergoing rehabilitation procedures (Article 180(1) and (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). The Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that claims that constitute public-interest claims shall be repaid in preference to rehabilitation claims or rehabilitation fences (Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). Furthermore, Articles 58(6), 59(2), and 108(3)2 and 4, and Articles 121(2), 177, and 256(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provide for separate provisions regarding cases in which public-interest claims are created (Article 58(6), 59(2), and 108(3)2 and 4, and Articles 121

In light of the above provisions and the aforementioned contents of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act as to public-interest claims, public-interest claims are limited to claims against the debtor recognized in order to reimburse expenses incurred in the execution of the rehabilitation procedure, which are claims recognized under Article 179, which are general provisions for public-interest claims, or claims recognized as public-interest claims under individual provisions, and mainly fall under claims arising from the cause after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure. However, among public-interest claims provided for in Article 179, claims fall under rehabilitation claims based on the concept of rehabilitation claims based on the cause arising before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure. However, among public-interest claims provided for in Article 179, the concept of equity or social policy provides for public-interest claims. However, in relation to the employee's claims arising from the cause that occurred before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure, the "worker's wage, retirement allowance and accident compensation (No. 10)," the deposit and guarantee

B. (1) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff spent expenses incurred in relation to the debtor company’s construction and repair of defects on behalf of the debtor company who had been in financial difficulties while working as the head of the facility department of the debtor company prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor company. Even if the Plaintiff spent expenses to perform the debtor company’s business in the position of the field manager, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff lent expenses to the debtor company as expenses to be paid by the debtor company in favor of the debtor company to the debtor company for the purpose of paying wages, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was inevitably accompanied by a labor relationship, which provides labor to the employer in subordinate relationship with the debtor company for the purpose of wage, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the debtor company cannot be deemed as

(2) In addition, even though such a claim against the Plaintiff’s company by home can be seen as “other claims arising from labor relations” under Article 38(1) of the Labor Standards Act, it shall be deemed that the inevitable expenses that should be paid for the Plaintiff’s company for reasons other than those provided for in subparagraphs 1 through 13 of Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act as the priority claims under Article 179 subparag. 14 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act refers to the cases where the Plaintiff’s claim is granted preferential rights over rehabilitation claims as the public interest, equity and social policy consideration are recognized to the extent corresponding to the claims under Article 179 subparag. 14 subparag. 14 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. In relation to the employee’s claim, Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides only “worker’s wage, retirement allowance and accident compensation (No. 10), worker’s deposit and guarantee money for refund arising from the commencement of rehabilitation procedures (No. 11). In light of the above circumstances, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s company is fair or equitable policy.

such claim shall not constitute a prescribed claim.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 60,791,072 against the Plaintiff’s company constitutes a priority claim is without further review. Meanwhile, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to the Plaintiff’s company by paying KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on January 18, 2008 would remain more than KRW 55,791,072. The Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 55,791,072 against the Plaintiff’s company was reported as a rehabilitation claim and the court changed the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 27,895,536 without interest prior to the commencement of the rehabilitation claim amount to KRW 27,895,536 as the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim amount and KRW 27,895,536 as the rehabilitation claim amount were entered in the rehabilitation creditors’ list, and the Plaintiff’s claim amount to KRW 25,500,000,000 was not reported in the rehabilitation plan or its rehabilitation plan.

Furthermore, as recognized in the above, the plaintiff's 27,895,536 claims approved in the rehabilitation plan were entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors, and the rehabilitation plan approval is finalized, and is based on the rehabilitation plan.

When the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan becomes final and conclusive (Article 255(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act); and when any right acknowledged to any rehabilitation creditor under the rehabilitation plan claims the payment of money and any other performance, the compulsory execution may be conducted against the debtor according to the table of rehabilitation creditors after the rehabilitation procedures are completed (main sentence of Article 255(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). Therefore, the plaintiff 27,895,536 won as stated in the table of rehabilitation creditors is approved in the rehabilitation plan and there is no benefit to seek a separate lawsuit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking KRW 27,895,536, which is recorded in the table of rehabilitation creditors of the debtor company among the lawsuit of this case against the Defendants is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims against the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Kim Gin-hun