Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong-dong International Law, Attorneys Seo Dong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Seo Il-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 16, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gahap12369 Decided November 23, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The first instance court's decision shall be revoked. The defendant will pay to the plaintiff KRW 727,116,745 if he/she was first on December 31, 201, and KRW 697,430,233 if he/she was first on December 31, 2012.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is as follows: ① “The Guarantee Claim against the Plaintiff” in Section 18 and 19 of Section 2 shall be dismissed as “the Defendant’s Claim”; ② the “6,252,176,000 won” in Section 2 of Section 3 shall be dismissed as “6,412,176,000”; ③ the “Plaintiff” in Section 10 of Chapter 3 shall be dismissed as “the Defendant”; ④ the third part shall be dismissed as follows;

본문내 포함된 표 구분 변경내용 경과이자 발생이자 총액 정리담보권 6,412,176,000원 ？ 7,704,988,998원 14,117,164,998원 정리채권 2,319,944,695원 132,967,287원 1,163,036,275원 3,615,948,257원 계 8,732,120,695원 132,967,287원 8,868,025,273원 17,733,113,255원

(5) Part 3, 17, “Korea Asset Management Corporation” shall be placed in custody as “Korea Asset Management Corporation,” and 6, 7, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8, 8, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,

[Supplementary Parts]

In the case of the proviso of Article 110 (2) of the former Company Reorganization Act, the plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with the above provision, if a person holding a right to indemnity under the proviso of the same Article has made performance, he shall obtain an obligee's right according to the ratio of performance. If a person holding a right to indemnity in the future has made partial performance, he shall obtain an obligee's right according to the ratio of performance, and the guarantor and obligee who has acquired the right to indemnity may receive performance of the obligation from the reorganization company which is the principal obligor in equal order. As seen above, the obligee may exercise his right as a reorganization creditor with respect to the total amount of the claim held at the time of commencement of reorganization proceedings until the full satisfaction of the claim. Even if a subrogation for a part of the claim is made, the exercise of the above right does not affect the exercise of the right, and as a result, the purport of Article 110 (2) of the former Company Reorganization Act is more than 2, and in the case where there is a person holding the right to indemnity under the premise that the obligee's right to indemnity has been partially discharged and the amount of the obligation has been discharged.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Round (Presiding Judge)