In the event that the maturity period of composition bonds changes to one after the final and conclusive date of the decision on approval of composition, the time of the extinctive prescription of the guaranteed bonds suspended due to the participation in composition procedure (=when the decision on approval of composition is finalized)

Articles 41 (Abolition of the current Article), 61 (Elimination of the current Article), and 61 (Elimination of the current Article) of the former Composition Act (Abolition of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005); Article 298 (2) of the former Bankruptcy Act (repealed of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005); Articles 168 and 440 of the Civil Act

Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation for Bankruptcy Corporation

Other Party

Seoul Central District Court Order 2006Ra690 dated March 5, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Since Article 41 of the former Composition Act (amended by Act No. 7428, Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that "participation in composition procedures shall be deemed a judicial claim with respect to interruption of prescription," the interruption of prescription against a debtor when a creditor files a report on a composition claim to participate in composition procedures, and the interruption of prescription is also effective against a guarantor pursuant to Article 40 of the Civil Act, and the interruption of prescription is also effective as above. Such interruption of prescription is again effective as against a guarantor pursuant to Article 440 of the Civil Act. However, in cases where the period of payment of composition bonds is changed after the final decision of approval of composition becomes final and conclusive, the principal debtor can exercise the right to due date for the composition, and the new extinctive prescription period shall expire after the final and conclusive decision of provisional seizure, and as for a guarantor, the creditor still has an effect on the guarantor's right at any time after the provisional seizure decision of this case becomes final and conclusive, regardless of the period of extinctive prescription's right to the creditor's right at any time.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of relevant statutes and records, we affirm the judgment below as just and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged by the re-appellant.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)