[1] Method of appeal against a decision to discontinue the company reorganization procedure (=special appeal)

[2] The meaning of "where reorganization programs under Article 272 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act cannot be referred to the meeting of interested persons for examination or resolution"

[1] Article 280 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "the provisions of Article 237 (1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any appeal against the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings, and any appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8," and in light of the above provisions, any reappeal against the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings is not allowed, and only special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8

[2] Under Article 272 (1) 1 of the Company Reorganization Act, where no reorganization program is submitted within the period or extended period as determined by the court, or all the programs submitted within such period are not enough to refer to the examination or resolution of the meeting of interested persons, the court shall decide to abolish the reorganization proceedings ex officio. The above term "when the contents of the programs are not consistent with the provisions of the Act, are lack of fairness and fairness, or it is impossible to carry out the programs, or where the contents of the programs are not likely to be resolved at the meeting of interested persons."

[1] Articles 8, 237, and 280 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 272 (1) 1 of the Company Reorganization Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 96Ma2170 dated March 4, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1166), Supreme Court Order 97Ma1775 dated September 3, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3369) / [2] Supreme Court Order 82Ma585 dated September 30, 1982 (Gong1982, 1075)

The administrator of the Dong building industry corporation (Attorneys Lee Dong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Order 98Ra33 dated November 16, 1998

The special appeal is dismissed.

1. First of all, Article 280 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "the provisions of Article 237 (1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any appeal against the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings, and any appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8," and in light of the above provisions, with regard to the decision to dismiss the reorganization proceedings, the reappeal against the decision to abolish the reorganization proceedings is not allowed and only a special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 of the same Act is allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 96Ma2170, Mar. 4, 1997; Order 97Ma175, Sept. 3, 1997).

2. The grounds of special appeal are examined;

According to Article 272(1)1 of the Company Reorganization Act, where no reorganization program is submitted within the period or extended by the court, or all the programs submitted within such period are not sufficient to refer to the examination or resolution of the meeting of interested persons, the court shall, ex officio, decide to abolish the reorganization program. Thus, where the contents of the program are not consistent with the provisions of the Act, lack of fairness and fairness, or it is impossible to carry out the program, or where there is no possibility to obtain a resolution of the program at the meeting of interested persons (see Supreme Court Order 82Ma585, Sept. 30, 1982).

In this case, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and maintained the first instance court's decision that abolished the reorganization procedure of this case by applying the latter part of Article 272 (1) 1 of the Company Reorganization Act, on the ground that there is no possibility that the reorganization plan of this case would be approved at the meeting of interested persons, since the reorganization plan of this case is based on the reorganization plan submitted by the administrator of the reorganization company of this case, the reorganization procedure of this case is an essential premise for financial support through a third party acceptance, and it becomes practically impossible to accept the third party despite the efforts repeated after the commencement of reorganization procedure, and therefore, the reorganization plan of this case, which is the largest security holder, is not possible to consent to the above reorganization plan. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above decision of the court below

In addition, as pointed out in the special grounds of appeal, even if the Cho Jae-Hy Bank had already transferred its claims to the Korea Assets Management Corporation, it does not seem to have made it possible to accept a third party of the reorganization company, or that the Korea Assets Management Corporation has a possibility to consent to the reorganization program. Therefore, the special grounds of appeal that criticizes the order of the court below on the ground of the assignment of claims cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)