Article 102 of the Company Reorganization Act

Korea Shipping Co., Ltd.

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd. and five others

Seoul Civil District Court (88 Gohap4945, 89 Ghana12716)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's reorganization claims and voting rights equivalent to 25,326,97,603 won for the Seoju Industrial Co., Ltd. and the amount equal to 25,326,97,603 won for the Seoju Industrial Co., Ltd., and the amount equivalent to 3,080,000 won out of the above amount shall be confirmed as 5% per annum from July 11, 1988 to the time when the approval of the reorganization plan is decided. The amount equivalent to 6% per annum from July 11, 198 to the time when the approval of the reorganization plan is decided shall be confirmed as 19% per annum from July 11, 198 to the time when the approval of the reorganization plan is decided.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in total, in the first and second instances.

1. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case, which is the plaintiff (the first one was the Korea Shipping Corporation, which was changed to the Korea Shipping Corporation on March 7, 198, and each trade name was changed to the Korea Shipping Corporation on December 3, 198), and the reorganization company's claim for 25,326,97,603 of the total amount of claims such as loans, indemnity amount, future indemnity amount, letter of credit amount, import procedure fees, etc. as reorganization claim, and interest and delay damages from the time when the approval of the reorganization plan is decided after the commencement of reorganization procedure to the time when the above amount is determined to be 3,080,000, the above amount as 165% per annum per annum per annum, 9,207,81, 198, 198, 198, 198, 2000, 3,0000,000,000 won per annum of the above reorganization claim against the defendant Corporation.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the lawsuit against the defendant custodian

According to Article 147 (3) of the Company Reorganization Act, when there are several persons who raise an objection to the reorganization claim in a lawsuit for confirmation of the reorganization claim, all of them must be co-defendants. Since, other than the defendant administrator, shareholders of the company in charge of accounting or five persons who are reorganization creditors, etc. raise an objection to the plaintiff's above reported claim on the date of reorganization claim inspection, the above lawsuit filed by the plaintiff only with the defendant administrator is unlawful. On the other hand, on March 18, 1989, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the reorganization claim with respect to five persons, including the defendant Maho, etc. on May 11, 1989, and this lawsuit is clearly recorded in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation of the reorganization claim was joined with the defendant administrator on May 11, 1989, each of the objectors to be co-defendants is the legal entities with their own own interests, and if they do not file a lawsuit against some of the objectorss within the period of release, the remaining lawsuit against the defendant's co-appellant is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the five persons, including the defendant leap citizens, etc.

According to Article 147 (1) and (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, with respect to a reorganization claim against which an objection is raised, a right holder may seek confirmation of his right by filing a lawsuit against the objectioner, and such lawsuit shall be filed within one month from the date of investigation of his right. According to the records of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 6 (Protocol of Investigation Date) without dispute in its establishment, the act of fraud of the reorganization claim and security of the above reorganization company can be recognized as a fraud of the above reorganization company on September 9, 198, and the special investigation date of Oct. 31, 198, such as a subsequent report reorganization claim, etc. No objection is raised contrary to the records, and it is apparent that a lawsuit against five persons, such as the defendant Maho, was filed on March 18, 1989, and thus, the above lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed with the statutory period, and even if the above lawsuit is complied with after the above statutory period, it is still unlawful as a result of the plaintiff's initial lawsuit against the defendant's manager.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits against the plaintiff, the administrator of the defendant, and the defendant 5, including the defendant Y, are dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is consistent with this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is just and without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Cho Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)