Korean High Level Corporation

Masp Co., Ltd.

Daejeon District Court Order 2015 Taz. 3963 dated December 23, 2015

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The record reveals the following facts.

A. On October 15, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures as Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap147 with respect to the debtor; the rehabilitation plan approval order was issued on March 29, 2013; and the rehabilitation procedure completion decision on December 10, 2014, respectively (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”).

B. On December 16, 2015, on the basis of the authentic copy of a notarial deed (certificate number omitted) executory (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”), a creditor obtained the instant claim attachment and collection order from the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court regarding the debtor’s claim against the appellant from the Seosan Branch of the District Court, and on December 23, 2015, the court of first instance authorized the said order.

C. On the other hand, the debtor filed a lawsuit of objection seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the authentication of this case as Incheon District Court 2013Gahap8461, but lost the appeal, and upon dismissal of the appeal, the appeal is currently pending in the final appeal (Seoul High Court 2015Na2401, Seoul High Court 2015Da78901, Supreme Court 2015Da78901).

2. Determination

The debtor suspended compulsory execution against the debtor upon receiving a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures, and thereafter the debtor obtained the rehabilitation plan approval order, so the seizure and collection order of this case became invalidated, and the debtor appealed on the ground that the objection raised to exclude the executory power of the notarial deed of this case is pending.

However, the compulsory execution based on a rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right of the debtor, which had been suspended by the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure, becomes null and void (Articles 256 and 58(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Since the seizure and collection order of this case was issued after the rehabilitation procedure of this case was completed, it is obvious that it is not a compulsory execution already done before the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure, and therefore, it cannot be deemed null and void by the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure.

On the other hand, as long as the original copy of a separate decision to suspend compulsory execution is not submitted to the executive agency, compulsory execution is not suspended solely on the ground that the objection is pending, and the debtor's assertion that the seizure and collection order of this case should be revoked or suspended because the objection objection lawsuit is pending.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is just and there is no ground for appeal by the debtor, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Jin Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)