The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 252(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “When a decision is made to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan, the rights of rehabilitation creditors, rehabilitation secured creditors, shareholders and equity right holders shall be modified according to the rehabilitation plan.”

The change of rights here refers to the substantial change of the rights of rehabilitation creditors, etc. according to the rehabilitation plan according to the decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan.

This does not mean that only the liability separate from the liability is changed, and it is different from the exemption under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act for rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights not recognized by the rehabilitation plan, etc.

Therefore, if it is decided to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan, the rights of rehabilitation creditors, etc. are changed according to the rehabilitation plan and have the effect of full or partial exemption from obligations, and the deadline is extended if the deadline is postponed, and where rehabilitation claims or rehabilitation security rights are converted into equity, such rights are extinguished at the time of

(2) The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to revoke the obligor’s fraudulent act in comparison between the obligee and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser and restores the obligor’s property from the obligor’s responsible property to make it possible for the obligee to enforce compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20964, Mar. 14, 2003).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da84352 Decided April 24, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009). Therefore, in a creditor’s revocation lawsuit, the existence of a preserved claim is recognized and the revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution to the original state.