Where the approval decision of the reorganization plan to reduce the interest rate on delay damages among the principal obligation of the reorganization company becomes final and conclusive, the starting point of counting the guarantee liability for future delay damages.

When a decision to authorize a reorganization plan that reduces the interest rate on delay damages among the principal obligation of the reorganization company becomes final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription for the surety obligation of the guarantor as to the reduced portion shall proceed again from the time when the decision to authorize the reorganization plan becomes final and conclusive, but since the delay damages occur after the lapse of the period for delay, it shall not be deemed that the extinctive prescription is run immediately from the time when the decision to authorize the reorganization plan becomes final and conclusive

Articles 5 and 240(2) of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 166 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4548, May 26, 1995)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na15501 delivered on October 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

When a decision to reduce the overdue interest rate on delay damages among the principal obligation of the reorganization company becomes final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription on the surety obligation of the guarantor as to the above reduced portion shall resume from the time when the decision to authorize the reorganization plan becomes final and conclusive, but since delay damages occur after the lapse of the period for delay, it shall not be deemed that the extinctive prescription is run immediately from the time when the above decision to authorize the whole of future delay damages for which the delayed period has not yet lapsed (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da13893 delivered on May 26, 1995).

In the same purport, as the court below decided that the overdue interest rate on delay damages among the indemnity amount in the judgment of the non-party 1, the liquidation company's non-party 1, the non-party 2, reduces the overdue interest rate of 18% per annum or 19% per annum to 8% per annum, and the approval decision of the reorganization plan becomes final and conclusive, the extinctive prescription for the guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff as to the above reduced delay damages from the time when the approval decision becomes final and conclusive. However, as the defendant requested an auction of the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and requested an auction of the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and five years retroactively from the day when the prescription period for the above guaranteed obligation of the plaintiff was suspended, only the part on the delay damages incurred until July 30, 198 was terminated by the completion of the commercial extinctive prescription period for five years, and the part on the guarantee obligation still remains. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription for the guaranteed obligation of the reorganization company.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)