Whether the reorganization claim exempted due to the failure to report is living again due to the completion of the company reorganization procedure.

With respect to a reorganization claim which has not been reported within the prescribed period, the company shall be exempted from its liability, and the reorganization claim which has been extinguished once the reorganization procedure is completed due to the execution of the reorganization program shall not be considered to be living again.

Article 125 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 241 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 243 of the Company Reorganization Act,

Seoul High Court Decision 80Nu231 decided July 28, 1981 (No. 29 ② 82Gong665, No. 14267) decided September 9, 1980; 80Nu232 decided September 9, 1980 (Public Notice II Article 157 Section 116, No. 645, 13296)

Park Nam-nam

New Mine Corporation

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,386,40 won with 25% interest per annum from July 4, 1984 to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The fact that the non-party 1,00,000 won was paid in 2 million won to the defendant company on August 3, 1972 by the fact that the non-party 1 reported the adjusted bonds in accordance with the Presidential emergency order relating to the economic stability and growth promulgated on August 3, 1972. The above claims were paid in six installments for three years from August 3, 1973 to August 3, 1976, and the interest shall be paid in 35 percent per month. The above non-party 1 was not paid in 33,330 won in 1 minute from the defendant company. There is no dispute between the parties.

On March 5, 1984, the plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the remaining principal amount of KRW 1,66,670, total amount of the non-party's outstanding principal amount of KRW 6,386,400, and damages for delay in the future against the above principal amount on the ground that he received the above claim from the above non-party on March 5, 1984, the defendant company is a company for which the decision to commence reorganization proceedings was made pursuant to the Company Reorganization Act, and the above non-party did not report the above claim corresponding to the reorganization claim within the prescribed period, and the above claim has already been discharged and extinguished before the transfer by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant company is a company for which the decision to commence reorganization proceedings was made pursuant to the above Article 1-2 (Public Notice of Commencement), Eul evidence 2 (Public Notice of Commencement), Eul evidence 3-1 (Decision), and evidence 2 (Public Notice) and all of the above reorganization proceedings were reported to the court's decision to commence reorganization proceedings under the same Ordinance No. 2372, Aug. 136, 197, 197.

Thus, reorganization creditors wishing to participate in reorganization proceedings shall report within the period as determined by the court, and the company shall be exempted from liability for all reorganization claims except for the rights recognized by the court pursuant to the provisions of the reorganization plan or the provisions of the Company Reorganization Act, if the decision to authorize reorganization programs has been made, and as long as those claims are not included in the reorganization plan approved by failure to report clearly the above claims within the prescribed period under Articles 125 and 241 of the Company Reorganization Act, it shall not be deemed that the defendant company is exempted from liability for the above claims unless there are special circumstances, and since the reorganization proceedings are completed by the implementation of the reorganization plan, it shall not be deemed that the above claim extinguished once the above claims are returned to the defendant company, on the ground that the above claims were acquired by the court, have no further need to determine. Accordingly, the lawsuit costs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party.

Judges Lee Ji-ho (Presiding Judge)