(영문) 대법원 2016.3.24.선고 2015다35393 판결

1. Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “when a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures has been rendered, the proceedings relating to the debtor’s property shall be interrupted.” Therefore, if one party during the proceeding of a lawsuit was rendered a ruling by the court without knowledge of the decision, and without proceeding proceedings involving either party, the said ruling is erroneous in the same manner as in the case where the custodian, etc., who is to take over the proceedings upon a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures, was tried and sentenced under a state in which the legal proceedings cannot be conducted, and the said decision was rendered, without being aware of the decision to commence the proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du1546, Sept. 27, 2012; 2011Da56057, Oct. 27, 2011).

2. According to the records, the first instance court, around 11:00 on June 27, 2014, closed the pleadings of the instant lawsuit and rendered a judgment on July 18, 2014, and rendered an appeal against the said judgment by the Plaintiff. However, on June 27, 2014, the first instance court issued a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures against B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), which was the Defendant of the first instance court (hereinafter “B”), on which June 27, 2014. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment on May 19, 2015, and rendered a judgment to fully accept the Plaintiff’s claim by the said lower judgment.

3. Examining these facts in light of the relevant statutes and the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim against B was established prior to the commencement order of rehabilitation procedures, and the lawsuit of this case seeking the payment thereof constitutes “litigation concerning the obligor’s property” under Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and thus, the decision of commencement of rehabilitation procedures as to B was suspended. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interruption of litigation procedures and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.