Where a decision is made to commence rehabilitation procedures for a debtor company after the closing of argument, whether the sentencing of the debtor company is legitimate (affirmative)

Articles 59(1) and 33 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Articles 238 and 247(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

New Development Industry (Attorney Shin Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeon-young (Law Firm Kim & Lee, Attorneys Park Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na56311 Decided December 7, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the allegation of illegality regarding a judgment on the merits

Where a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures is rendered with respect to a debtor company after the closing of argument, the proceedings relating to the debtor's property are suspended even if there is an attorney, but only the declaration of judgment can be made during the suspension of proceedings (see Articles 59(1) and 33 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Articles 238 and 247(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Supreme Court Decision 200Da44928, 44935, Jun. 26, 2001). Thus, even if a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures against the debtor company after the closing of argument, even if there was a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures with respect to the debtor company, the judgment on the debtor company is legitimate.

According to the records, the court of original judgment concluded the pleading on October 12, 2007, and rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings on November 27, 2007, which was after the closing of argument, with respect to Yong-Nam Co., Ltd. on November 27, 2007, and the court of original judgment rendered a decision on December 7, 2007. Thus, the judgment of the court below is legitimate in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the allegation of illegality in the reasoning of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the evidence adopted, found the facts as stated in the judgment, and determined that Donam Co., Ltd issued the Promissory Notes in this case as the deposit of the warranty bond to the plaintiff. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's decision is just and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the validity of the Promissory Notes, contradiction in the reasoning, and the distribution

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)