[1] The case where "profit in confirmation" is recognized as a requirement for protection of rights in a lawsuit for confirmation

[2] The meaning that the debtor's exemption from rehabilitation claims, etc. according to the effect of the rehabilitation plan approval plan under Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and whether the exempted rehabilitation claims lose the ordinary ability to file a lawsuit (affirmative)

[1] A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment for confirmation is rendered at the time of the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger.

[2] Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides, “When a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan has been made, the debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for the rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan or by this Act.” Here, the term “liability” refers to the existence of an obligation itself, but it is not possible to compel the company to perform the obligation. Accordingly, the exempted rehabilitation claims lose the ability to file a lawsuit, which has ordinary claims.

In cases where a debtor is exempted from liability for rehabilitation claims pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, barring any special circumstance that may affect the debtor’s legal status as to the relevant rehabilitation creditor, barring any controversy over the existence or validity of the exempted rehabilitation claims and any exceptional circumstance that may affect the debtor’s legal status as to the relevant rehabilitation creditor, it cannot be deemed that the debtor’s legal status as to the rehabilitation creditor is currently unstable and dangerous, and thus, the benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the exempted obligation itself cannot be acknowledged (However, whether there is any benefit to seek confirmation of the

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206492 Decided June 11, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 979), Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255 Decided March 15, 2017 (Gong2017Sang, 739) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3122 Decided July 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1919), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2029, 20305 Decided April 29, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173 decided September 10, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1492)

The rehabilitation debtor corporation, non-party, the administrator of the non-party's non-party's non-party's lawsuit taking over the lawsuit of the non-party (Law Firm Suwon, Attorneys Jeon-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant)

Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Min-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2021492 decided October 5, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. A. A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be benefit in confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit in confirmation is recognized when obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da206492, Jun. 11, 2015; 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017).

B. Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides, “When a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan has been made, the debtor shall be exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights except for the rights recognized by the rehabilitation plan or by this Act.” Here, the term “liability” refers to the existence of an obligation itself, but it is not possible to compel the company to perform its obligations (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da3122, Jul. 24, 2001; 2003Da2029, Apr. 29, 2005; 20305, Apr. 29, 2005). Therefore, the exempted rehabilitation claim loses the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015).

In cases where a debtor is exempted from liability for rehabilitation claims pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, barring any special circumstance that may affect the debtor’s legal status as to the relevant rehabilitation creditor, barring any controversy over the existence or validity of the exempted rehabilitation claims and it cannot be deemed that there is any apprehension or risk in the debtor’s legal status as to the debtor’s rehabilitation creditor, and thus, the benefit of confirmation cannot be recognized to seek confirmation of the absence of the exempted obligation itself against the rehabilitation creditor (However, whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of the exempted obligation in relation to other legal status of the debtor

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

A. On March 21, 2012 and February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant for the repair of defects (hereinafter “instant construction”). In order to guarantee the obligation to repair defects to the instant construction works, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the repair of defects with the Special Construction Mutual Aid Association and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Guarantee Company”) and issued the warranty bond to the Defendant.

B. Around June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction. From November 22, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair the defects, and the Plaintiff requested the Guarantee Company to repair the defects.

C. On January 26, 2017, while the instant lawsuit was pending, rehabilitation procedures began with respect to the Plaintiff, and rehabilitation procedures were completed on May 24, 2018 following the rehabilitation plan approval.

D. Under the above rehabilitation procedure, the Defendant did not report the claim for damages in lieu of the defect repair of the Plaintiff within the reporting period of the rehabilitation claim and the claim for damages arising from the defect, and each of the damage claims was approved by the rehabilitation plan without being stated in the list of rehabilitation creditors.

3. The lower court: (a) deemed that each of the above damage claims constitutes a rehabilitation claim; (b) deemed exempted from liability pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act; and (c) did not exist for the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant on the grounds delineated below, but did not recognize the benefit of confirmation by deeming that it is unnecessary to seek confirmation of non-existence of the above obligation that was exempted from liability pursuant to the rehabilitation plan finalized by the Plaintiff; (d) in other words, even if the Defendant filed a claim against the guaranteed company for the warranty bond, the res judicata effect does not extend between the lawsuit for the warranty bond and the lawsuit for the confirmation of non-existence of the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant; and (b) therefore, it is difficult for

4. The reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the above facts and the legal principles as seen earlier. First, in light of the Plaintiff’s legal status as to the Defendant, there is no special circumstance where the existence or effect of the aforementioned exempted rehabilitation claim is disputed and it may affect the Plaintiff’s legal status as to the Defendant, and thus, the interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation cannot be recognized, since it cannot be said that there is any apprehension or risk existing in the legal status. Furthermore, even when considering the Plaintiff’s legal status as to the guaranteed company, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the benefit of confirmation or the probative value of the judgment

5. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)