[1] The validity of an agreement to restrict the period in which a claim for the performance of a specific obligation may be filed and in the case of an excess of such period, to extinguish the obligation (effective)

[2] The time limit for the creditor of the bankrupt to demand performance of his claim against the bankrupt or the method for preventing the completion of the extinctive prescription

[3] The purport that the provisions of Articles 209 and 207 (2) of the former Bankruptcy Act do not impose any restrictions on the reporting period of bankruptcy claims

[1] The agreement that limits the period in which a claim may be made for the performance of a specific obligation and limits the period in which such obligation is to be extinguished in cases where the period is to be imposed, is an agreement that shortens the period of extinctive prescription under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act, and is therefore valid under Article 184(2)

[2] In the event that a debtor goes bankrupt, the exercise of his/her right such as the claim for performance against the bankrupt shall be limited and changed by means of a bankruptcy claim report, etc. to the bankruptcy court, as prescribed by the Bankruptcy Act, so the creditor may exercise his/her right in the changed form of a bankruptcy claim report to the bankruptcy court, thereby preventing the lapse of the period for the performance of the obligation under the agreement or the completion of the extinctive prescription (i.e.,, the creditor shall not be able to preserve his/her claim

[3] Articles 209 and 207(2) of the former Bankruptcy Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) that did not impose any limitation on the reporting period of bankruptcy claims does not allow the holders of claims to exercise their claims by filing a report that is valid until the reporting date, and it does not allow the persons who already lost their claims due to the completion of extinctive prescription to restore their claims which have already been extinguished by filing a report of bankruptcy claims immediately before the reporting date.

[1] Article 184 (2) of the Civil Code / [2] Article 168 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, Article 15 (see current Article 424 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), Article 201 (see current Article 447 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act) of the former Bankruptcy Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) / [3] Article 207 (2) of the former Bankruptcy Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005) (see current Article 453 (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), Article 209 (see current Article 455 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act)

Han Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kim & Kim, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Doh-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means the term or “the term”

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na17407 delivered on November 12, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence of employment, the court below concluded a bond guarantee contract with the 50 billion won corporate bonds issued at the face value of 14 November 1996 with the Dongsung Bank Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong Sejong Bank"), with the guarantee period of 5 billion won from 14 November 1996 to 14 November 14, 1999. The court below rejected the claim for performance of guaranteed obligations against Dong Sejong Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage"), on the ground that the above 20-year period for performance of guaranteed obligations against the 50-month period was not limited to the 9-month period, and the 9-year period for performance of guaranteed obligations against the 20-year period for the 19-year period for the 20-year period for the 19-year period for the 20-year period for the 19-year period for the 20-year period for the 19-year period for the 19-year period for the 19-year period for the 2-old bankruptcy claim.

On the other hand, the agreement that limits the period for claiming the performance of a specific obligation and limits the period for which the obligation is to be extinguished if it is the agreement that reduces the period of extinctive prescription under the Civil Act or the Commercial Act, and barring any special circumstance, it is valid pursuant to Article 184(2) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance. Meanwhile, in the event that a debtor goes bankrupt, the creditor's exercise of his right, such as the creditor's claim performance against the bankrupt, etc., is limited and changed by the method of reporting bankruptcy claims, etc. to the bankruptcy court, as prescribed by the Bankruptcy Act, so the creditor may avoid the lapse of the period for demanding performance under the above agreement or preventing the completion of extinctive prescription (i.e.,, the creditor can preserve his claim only if the debtor claims are requested to discharge the bankrupt), and the provisions of Articles 209 and 207(2) of the Bankruptcy Act are not limited by the reporting period, but by having the person holding the claim effective until the reporting period become invalid, and it should not be delayed before the expiration of the claim through the reporting period.

Therefore, the court below determined that the agreement on the limitation of the period for the performance of the claim in this case cannot be invalidated or excluded solely on the ground that the plaintiff is no longer able to claim the performance of the guaranteed obligation in this case against the Dongan Bank due to the bankruptcy of the Dongan Bank, or that the provisions of Articles 209 and 207 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act provide that the bankruptcy claim may be reported despite the intention of the period for the performance of the obligation to report, and thus rejected the plaintiff's above assertion in light of the above legal principles.

However, the Dongsung Bank, a guarantee creditor, was declared bankrupt on October 16, 1998, and Article 20 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that "if the guarantor is declared bankrupt, the creditor may exercise his right as a bankruptcy creditor with respect to the total amount of the claim that he holds at the time bankruptcy is declared bankrupt, the creditor may exercise his right as a bankruptcy creditor." Thus, the guarantee obligation of the Dongsung Bank shall be deemed to have been able to exercise his right as the guarantee creditor as of October 16, 1998, and therefore, the period for requesting the performance of the above three-month period shall also be the first day of the first three-month period. The court below's decision that deemed the first day of the period for demanding the performance of the obligation as of November 14, 1999, which was the date for redemption of the original corporate bonds, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of prohibition of individual execution of claims and the period of reporting bankruptcy claims under the Bankruptcy Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Furthermore, even if the guaranteed liability of this case was not extinguished due to the limit of the period for the performance of the above contract, the court below held that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to purchase in opposition to the reorganization of claims by the creditor financial council of creditor financial institutions on Scure, and the council decided to designate Scure and Accentex corporation as its purchaser, and that the plaintiff can only file a claim for the proceeds of sale of the claim, which is set forth in the conciliation procedure or the procedure for objection to the court, even though it did not exercise the bonds of this case against Scure, or the bonds of this case against the bonds of this case and the bonds of this case against the Eccent Bank, and that the plaintiff can no longer claim for the proceeds of sale of the claim, which is set forth in the conciliation procedure or the procedure for objection to the court. As seen above, as long as the judgment of the court below was just, the argument in the

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)