In cases where a rehabilitation creditor takes over litigation procedures related to rehabilitation claims interrupted by the decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures for the debtor, whether to revise the purport of the claim by seeking confirmation of the rehabilitation claim (affirmative), and whether such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a custodian, etc. of the debtor debtor, etc. raises an objection to the claims reported as rehabilitation claims under the rehabilitation procedures and takes over the litigation procedures suspended (affirmative)

According to Articles 59(1), 118, and 131 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when a decision is made to commence rehabilitation procedures, the litigation procedures on the debtor's property shall be suspended; and any individual rehabilitation claims, such as property claims arising prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures or damages incurred due to nonperformance after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, shall not be exercised outside the rehabilitation procedures, except as otherwise provided for in the rehabilitation plan, by means of repayment, etc., without following the provisions of the rehabilitation plan. Therefore, where a rehabilitation creditor takes over the litigation procedures related to rehabilitation claims, which have been interrupted by the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the debtor, he/she shall seek the confirmation of the rehabilitation claims and revise the purport of the claim. This legal doctrine also applies where the debtor, etc. raises

In addition, where the litigation procedures interrupted by the decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures for the rehabilitation debtor are taken over, the court cannot render a judgment ordering the performance of the obligation in accordance with the previous purport of the claim. If rehabilitation creditors do not change the purport of the claim, etc., the court should explain the need to modify the purport of the claim to the plaintiff by stating that it is necessary to modify the purport of the claim to the plaintiff.

Articles 59(1), 118, 131, and 172(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; Articles 136 and 262 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant of the Administrator of Space Environment Industry, Co., Ltd., a party to the Space Environment Industry

The administrator of the space environment industry, a rehabilitation debtor, and the defendant-appellant;

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Na710 decided August 13, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Panel Division of the Chuncheon District Court. The request for the continuation of proceedings is dismissed. The cost of the request for the continuation of proceedings is borne by the requester

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal is ex officio.

According to Articles 59(1), 118, and 131 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when a decision is made to commence rehabilitation procedures, the litigation procedures on the debtor's property shall be suspended; and any individual rehabilitation claims, such as property claims arising prior to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures or damages incurred due to nonperformance after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, shall not be exercised outside the rehabilitation procedures, except as otherwise provided for in the rehabilitation plan, by means of repayment, etc., without following the provisions of the rehabilitation plan. Therefore, where a rehabilitation creditor takes over the litigation procedures related to rehabilitation claims, which have been interrupted by the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the debtor, he/she shall seek the confirmation of the rehabilitation claims and revise the purport of the claim. This legal doctrine also applies where the debtor, etc. raises

In addition, where the litigation procedures interrupted by the decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures for the rehabilitation debtor are taken over, the court cannot render a judgment ordering the performance of the obligation in accordance with the previous purport of the claim. If rehabilitation creditors do not change the purport of the claim, etc., the court should explain the need to modify the purport of the claim to the plaintiff by stating that it is necessary to modify the purport of the claim to the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the space environment industry (hereinafter "space environment") for equipment usage fee and its delay damages (hereinafter "each claim of this case"), and the payment order was issued in accordance with the purport of the application. The space environment raised an objection and implemented as the lawsuit of this case. The decision for commencing the rehabilitation procedure for the space environment was rendered on February 14, 2013 when the court of first instance was in progress on February 14, 2013 and the defendant was appointed as the administrator of the space environment for rehabilitation. The court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's application for changing the usage fee of the equipment of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff on February 21, 2013 and did not order the plaintiff to pay the total amount of the plaintiff's claim. The court of first instance did not order the correction of the plaintiff's claim of this case as rehabilitation claim against the space environment of this case and ordered the plaintiff to pay the damages for delay damages of this case to the plaintiff on March 28, 2013.

Examining the aforementioned facts in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, each of the instant claims constitutes a rehabilitation claim based on the property claim arising from the ground before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures or nonperformance after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures with respect to the outer environment, which is the rehabilitation debtor, and, as such, the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of each of the instant claims, which is a rehabilitation claim, ought to be modified to seek confirmation of the rehabilitation claim after being taken over at the Defendant’s request. Therefore, the lower court should not render a judgment ordering the performance of the obligation, and should have clarified the Plaintiff’s intent as to the modification of the purport of the claim, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on rehabilitation claim-related lawsuits taken over by the rehabilitation obligor and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which ordered the Defendant, not the subject of rights and obligations regarding each of the claims of this case without making any indication on the amendment of the purport of the claim, etc. to the Plaintiff.

2. In a case where a judgment is declared without holding any pleadings during the period in which the appellate brief was not timely filed, the custodian is not required to have the custodian take over the proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6349, Jul. 11, 2013). The application to take over the proceedings of the applicant for taking over the proceedings is not accepted.

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The application to resume proceedings is dismissed, and the cost of the application to resume proceedings is borne by the applicant to resume proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)