Where the damage claim which is a reorganization claim is excluded from the provisions of the reorganization program because it is not reported pursuant to the reorganization proceedings, the case holding that such claim shall be lost

According to the Company Reorganization Act, if reorganization proceedings are commenced, the reorganization claims shall not be repaid, received or extinguished, and the reorganization proceedings shall only acquire claims pursuant to the provisions of the approved reorganization plan by participating in the reorganization proceedings after reporting the reorganization claims they hold, participating in the reorganization proceedings at an investigation date or an assembly of related persons, and exercising prescribed rights. In the case where the approval of reorganization programs is decided, the company shall be exempted from its liability for all reorganization claims except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the reorganization plan or under the Company Reorganization Act, and therefore, the reorganization creditors excluded from the provisions of the reorganization plan by failing to report the reorganization claims shall lose their claims.

Articles 113, 125, 241, and 242 of the Company Reorganization Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 814, Oct. 28, 1987)

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2 and six others

The administrator of Mag-marmix Co., Ltd., the reorganization company, the taking-off of the lawsuit of the Maddle Madarmix,

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (86Gahap427)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

Plaintiff 1 confirmed that Plaintiff 1 had a claim of KRW 44,304,420 against Defendant, and KRW 1,00,000 for Plaintiff 2, and KRW 3,4,5,6,7, and KRW 700,00 for each of the claims against Plaintiff 3,4,5,6,7, and 8.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (the plaintiff revised the purport of the claim in the trial).

(Plaintiff 1)

It shall be amended in accordance with paragraph (1) of the original judgment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

(Defendant)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and all corresponding plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

소외 주식회사 선광쎄라믹스의 운전사인 소외 인이 1985.4.10. 13:50경 (차량번호 생략)호 승용차를 운전하여 서울 영등포구 여의도동 11에 있는 보훈회관 앞의 신호등없는 네거리 교차로상을 신화빌딩 쪽에서 여의도 관광호텔 방면으로 횡단하면서 위 교차로상을 5.16광장 쪽으로 국회의사당 방면으로 횡단하던 원고 1 운전의 (차량번호 생략)호 개인택시를 충격한 교통사고가 발생한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(호적등본), 갑 제2호증의 1, 2(각 주민등록표등본), 갑 제4호증(자동차등록원부), 갑 제6호증의 1(진단서), 갑 제7호증의 1(진단서), 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 4(각 사진), 갑 제12호증의 1(불기소장), 2(수사기록표지), 3(목록), 4(의견서), 5(범죄인지보고), 6(교통사고보고), 7(교통사고약도), 8(현장조사서),9(처벌불원확인서), 10, 11(각 피의자신문조서)의 각 기재를 종합하면, 소외인은 위 교차로상에서 왕복 8차선의 대로상을 횡단하면서 교차로상에서의 우측방주시를 태만히 한탓으로 우측도로의 왕복8차선도로상의 편도4차선 중 2차선으로 주행하던 원고 1이 운전하던 (차량번호 생략)호 개인택시를 발견하지 못하고 그대로 운행하여 위 개인택시를 충격하여 위 개인택시를 파손시키고, 위 개인택시의 운전사인 원고 1에게 뇌좌상, 경추 좌상 등으로 약 6개월간의 치료를 요하는 상해를 입게 한사실, 원고 2는 원고 1의 처, 원고 3, 4, 5, 6, 7은 원고 1의 아들, 원고 8은 원고 1의 맏며느리인 사실, (차량번호 생략)호 승용차에 대하여 위 주식회사 선광쎄라믹스와 소외 대영전자공업주식회사 공동명의로 등록되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 달리 반증없다.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that, as the non-party 1's employer and the non-party 1's user, the non-party 1 is responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case caused by the operation of the above vehicle and the non-party's negligence, and that the damage is that the plaintiff 1 is liable for compensating for all damages incurred by the plaintiffs. The damages are 21,266,930 won for lost profit, 20,146,290 won for vehicle repair expenses (including after-sales treatment expenses), 891,200 won for vehicle repair expenses, 44,304,420 won for consolation money, 2,000 won for consolation money, 2,000,000 won for consolation money, 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 won for consolation money for non-party 1 to the above defendant.

However, according to the Company Reorganization Act, if reorganization proceedings are commenced, reorganization claims cannot be repaid without reorganization proceedings, received reimbursement, or extinguished. Reorganization creditors report reorganization claims they hold and participate in reorganization proceedings and exercise prescribed rights at the investigation date or the meeting of interested persons. In case where the approval of reorganization plans is decided, the company is exempted from its liability for all reorganization claims except for the rights recognized under the provisions of the Reorganization Act or the Company Reorganization Act, and the reorganization creditors excluded from the provisions of the reorganization plan due to their failure to report reorganization claims are deprived of their claim. In this case, even though the reorganization claims of the plaintiffs were established by the reorganization procedure under the Company Reorganization Act on September 17, 1986, the court below's decision to commence reorganization proceedings on September 17, 1986, the plaintiffs' damage claim of this case was lost since the plaintiffs did not dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiffs is without merit and there is no need to determine the remaining points, so all of them shall be dismissed. However, since the original judgment was modified to the purport of the claim by the plaintiffs in the original judgment, it is unfair to conclude a different conclusion, as well as to revise the purport of the claim by the plaintiffs in the original judgment, all of the claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed by changing the original judgment, and the costs of the lawsuit shall

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Transfer Kim Young-hun