204No less than 673 Promissory notes

○○○○○○○○○○

See the attached list of the Defendants.

March 10, 2005

April 21, 2005

1. Defendant ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○ Tourist Accommodation, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○ shall jointly pay to the Plaintiff 372 million won with the amount calculated by adding 6% per annum from December 19, 203 to March 30, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit on the ○○○○ Manager Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff, ○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, among the costs of lawsuit, shall be borne by the said Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. As to the Defendant ○○○○○○○, the Defendant Company ○○○○○○○, the Defendant Company ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, the Defendant Company, ○○○ Tourist Tourist, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, the same as indicated in paragraph

2. The Defendant Reorganization Company ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Defendant Reorganization Company”) confirms that the Plaintiff has a reorganization claim and an equal amount of voting rights in KRW 380,968,767.

1. The part of the claim against Defendant ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○ Tourist, ○○○○, and ○○○○○.

(a) Grounds for claims;

(1) On August 20, 2003, the non-party ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”) (hereinafter “○○○”) Company: “Amount of face money: 370 million won: the date of payment: December 18, 2003; the place of payment and the place of payment: Pyeongtaek-si and the place of payment: ○○ Company.

A promissory note with “○○ Branch” was issued and delivered to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○.

Councilly, the promissory note, on the same day, was repeatedly endorsed and transferred to Defendant ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○ Tourist hotel, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on November 26, 2003. The said promissory note was endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff on November 26, 200.

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Part of the claim against the defendant administrator;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ○○○○, the issuer of the above promissory note, to pay the amount of promissory note and its delay damages as stated in Paragraph (1) of the above Article (hereinafter "the first lawsuit"), and filed a reorganization claim against ○○○○○, which is the issuer of the above promissory note, with the defendants mentioned in Paragraph (1) of the above Article. The plaintiff filed a reorganization claim against the above promissory note and its delay damages, and the plaintiff filed a reorganization claim against 380,968,767 won. The defendant administrator filed the first lawsuit against ○○○○, which is the plaintiff's filing of the first lawsuit against ○○○○○, with the plaintiff, and the first lawsuit was duly filed by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant administrator is obligated to verify that the reorganization claim and its amount were voting rights of 380,968,767 won.

B. Main safety defense of the defendant administrator

As to this, the defendant administrator asserted that the plaintiff's claim is unlawful, since the plaintiff's claim is not filed within one month from the claim inspection date against the administrator who raised an objection to the claim after the plaintiff reported the reorganization claim.

(c) Fact of recognition;

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3-2, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) On March 11, 2004, when the Plaintiff filed the first lawsuit, the first lawsuit was pending and the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure was made on March 11, 2004, and ○○○○ was appointed as the administrator of ○○○○○○ Company.

B. On April 21, 2004, the Plaintiff reported KRW 380,968,767 of the Promissory Notes and damages for delay as reorganization claim. The Defendant administrator raised an objection against the entire claim reported by the Plaintiff on June 3, 2004 at the investigation date held on June 3, 2004.

On the other hand, on April 21, 2004, the defendant administrator requested suspension of legal proceedings because the court rendered a decision to commence the first lawsuit in this court on April 21, 2004, and requested suspension of legal proceedings. On the same day, the first lawsuit against the ○○○, which was suspended by the decision to commence the reorganization proceedings, is proceeding by the defendant administrator.

Around July 5, 2004, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim against the defendant administrator under the Suwon District Court 2004Gahap8848, and revised the purport of the claim in three times on November 18, 2004 as well as on January 18, 2004 and January 28, 2005, and did not file a request for confirmation of the first lawsuit against the defendant administrator after the claim date implemented on June 3, 2004.

D. Determination

(1) In full view of Articles 68, 147(1), (2), and 149 of the Company Reorganization Act, litigation procedures concerning reorganization claims falling under property claims arising prior to the commencement of the company reorganization procedure shall be suspended when the company reorganization procedure has commenced. However, where litigation concerning reorganization claims is pending at the time of the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure, if a reorganization creditor files a report to the competent court in the case of reorganization claims to the court in which the company reorganization proceedings are pending and raises an objection to the confirmation of rights, he/she shall take over the lawsuit against an objection to the reorganization claims reported to the court in which the previous lawsuit is pending, and in any case, a request for resumption may be made within one month after the date the investigation of rights is conducted, and where a request for continuation is made after the expiration of the period, the lawsuit for confirmation of the reorganization claim is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da17155, Aug. 22,

proceedings for confirmation of reorganization claim, or a request for continuation of pending proceedings, or

All rights shall be within one month from the date of the investigation into the rights. In the company reorganization procedure, the interests of the majority parties need to be adjusted in the company reorganization procedure at once, and in light of the fact that the simple and swiftness of the procedure is required, the limitation of the period of release or the period of request for continuation is a reasonable limitation (see Constitutional Court Order 95HunGa15 delivered on August 29, 1996), and considering that the individual exercise of reorganization claims not under the company reorganization procedure is restricted and that the right cannot be asserted within the period of the company reorganization procedure without complying with certain procedures, the starting point of the above one-month period calculated from the date of investigation stated in the objection shall be strictly interpreted. In addition, in order to continue the suspended lawsuit, the defendant should be the manager of the company, and the objective claim should be changed from the company to the litigation for the confirmation of the reorganization claim, etc., and such change should also be deemed to have the substance of the claim seeking the confirmation of the existence and scope of the reorganization claim.

D. On April 21, 2004, even if the first lawsuit was changed into a lawsuit for confirmation of a reorganization claim against the defendant administrator upon the defendant administrator’s request for continuation on the part of April 21, 2004, this cannot be deemed as falling under the expression of intent to seek confirmation as to the existence and scope of a reorganization claim, which was made before the defendant administrator stated an objection against the reorganization claim reported by the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed as lawful request for continuation within the period of the lawsuit, and otherwise, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

E. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant administrator is dismissed.

Judges ClinicalO