[1] Where rehabilitation claims have been reported after the expiration of the reporting period pursuant to Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the rehabilitation court concluded that the subsequent completion report is lawful and completed the inspection procedure for the subsequent completed claims by opening a special inspection date, whether an objection is permitted on the ground that the subsequent completion of the report did not meet the requirements for supplementation (negative), and whether the same applies to the final claim inspection judgment under Article 170 of the same Act (affirmative)

[2] Where a rehabilitation creditor is unable to expect to participate in the rehabilitation procedure by reporting the rehabilitation claim within the reporting period set by the rehabilitation court, whether it is permissible to supplement the report of the rehabilitation claim notwithstanding Article 152(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (affirmative); and where the rehabilitation court has completed the inspection procedure of the claim for which the subsequent completion report is filed at the special inspection date based on the determination that the subsequent completion report is lawful, whether the grounds for failing to meet the requirements for subsequent supplement in the final claim inspection judgment can be asserted (negative)

[3] In a case where an objection is made with respect to the legitimacy of a report on the completion of rehabilitation claims on the special inspection date following the report on the completion of rehabilitation claims, whether the report constitutes a “Objection” under Article 170(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (negative), and the standard for determining whether an interested party, such as a rehabilitation creditor, who is not a custodian, is “Objection” under the said Article

[1] Where rehabilitation claims are reported after the reporting period has expired pursuant to Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the rehabilitation court shall review the requirements of Articles 153(1) and 152(2) and (3) applicable mutatis mutandis under Articles 153(2) and 153(2) and undergo investigation procedures as rehabilitation claims. However, if the rehabilitation court decides that the subsequent completion report is lawful and completes the investigation procedures for the subsequent completion claim by opening the special investigation date, it is reasonable to deem that any objection on the grounds that the subsequent completion of the report under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is not permissible. This is also the same in the final claim inspection judgment under Article 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Accordingly, if the rehabilitation court considers that the subsequent completion report is lawful and completed the investigation procedures for the claims subsequent completion from the special investigation date, it cannot be asserted that the subsequent report requirements have not been satisfied even in the final claim inspection judgment.

[2] Articles 152(3) and 153(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provide that, after the assembly of related persons is completed for the examination of a rehabilitation plan or after a decision is made to refer the rehabilitation plan to a written resolution, a subsequent completion report is not allowed pursuant to Article 152(1) or 153(1). However, in cases where a rehabilitation creditor is unable to expect participation in the rehabilitation procedure due to the reporting of the rehabilitation claim within the reporting period set by the rehabilitation court, etc., it shall be allowed to supplement the report of the rehabilitation claim notwithstanding Article 152(3). In such cases, if the rehabilitation court determines that the subsequent completion report is lawful and completes the investigation procedure for the claims that are subsequently completed from the special inspection date, the grounds that the subsequent completion of the report did not meet the requirements for supplementation in the final claim inspection judgment cannot be asserted.

[3] In the final claim inspection judgment under Article 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the grounds for failing to meet the requirements for subsequent supplementation of the report cannot be asserted. Therefore, even if there was a statement of objection as to the legitimacy of the subsequent completion report at the special investigation date, this does not constitute “Objection” under Article 170(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which shall be subject to the final claim inspection judgment.

In addition, whether an interested party, such as a rehabilitation creditor, who is not a custodian, raises an objection under Article 170(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act that is to file a final claim inspection judgment at a special investigation date, ought to be determined based on the intention to block the confirmation of the pertinent claim while bearing the liability for response in the final claim inspection judgment procedure, in consideration of all the circumstances such as the details of the objection made at a special investigation date as well as the reason, circumstance and method leading up to such objection, the administrator or other interested party’s objection, and the content thereof, if any.

[1] Articles 152(2) and (3), 153, 162, and 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [2] Articles 152(1) and (3), 153, 162, and 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act / [3] Articles 152(1) and (3), 153, 162, and 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2014Da82439 Decided February 13, 2012 (Gong2017Sang, 13) Supreme Court Decision 2011Da256 Decided November 25, 2016 (Gong2017Sang, 13)

[Defendant-Appellant] Hero Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Military Personnel Mutual Aid Association (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Yong-dam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na5521 decided August 13, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, including attorney Lee Jong-soo, and the grounds of appeal No. 1, Pacific Law Firm

A. (1) In cases where rehabilitation claims are reported after the reporting period under Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the rehabilitation court shall review the requirements under Articles 153(1) and 153(2) applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 153(2) and undergo the inspection procedure as rehabilitation claims. However, once the rehabilitation court decides that the said subsequent completion report is lawful and completes the inspection procedure for the claims that are subsequently completed after opening the special inspection date, it is reasonable to deem that an objection is not allowed on the grounds that the subsequent completion of the report under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is not satisfied. This is also the same in the final claim inspection judgment under Article 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. If the rehabilitation court considers that the subsequent completion report is lawful and completed the inspection procedure for claims that are subsequently completed from the special inspection date, the following grounds can not be asserted even in the final claim inspection judgment.

① There is no express provision that a court’s judgment on the legitimacy of a subsequent completion report under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act may be contested by an immediate appeal, etc. In addition, whether a subsequent completion report is lawful is not subject to a claim report or investigation, but subject to a final and conclusive judgment procedure. This also applies to cases where the custodian or other interested parties have raised an objection against the legitimacy of a subsequent completion report.

② The procedure for claim inspection and confirmation is merely a procedure for the simple and prompt confirmation of the existence of substantive laws, such as rehabilitation claims, based on a premise for adequate preparation of a rehabilitation plan, and, in cases where the requirements for report on claims are strictly interpreted and only the claims meeting such requirements are recognized as a right and are not satisfied, the procedure for the forfeiture of the relevant claims. In essence, the period for report under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is merely for the provision of convenience to the custodian and other interested parties for investigation, not for the

③ Rather, in the rehabilitation procedure, there are many cases where an interested party is unable to directly receive the written decision of the rehabilitation court. On the other hand, in cases where a rehabilitation creditor, etc. neglects to report, taking into account the fact that the relevant claims are disadvantageous, such as forfeiture of rights, etc., and where it is deemed harsh to impose forfeited rights unless it seriously impedes the rehabilitation procedure, it is necessary to extensively interpret the reasons for not being responsible as much as possible (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma2081, Jul. 26, 1996

④ Determination by the rehabilitation court on the legitimacy of a report on the completion of rehabilitation is merely a procedural judgment as to whether the report on the completion of rehabilitation is accepted, taking into account the promptness and efficiency of rehabilitation procedures, convenience of the custodian and other interested persons in the procedures for claims investigation, disadvantages of rehabilitation creditors holding forfeited claims, etc. Even if the report on the completion of rehabilitation is accepted, insofar as the opportunity to contest the existence and content of the reported claims is guaranteed, such procedural judgment cannot be deemed as essentially infringing upon the custodian and other interested persons’ right to claim a trial.

(2) Articles 152(3) and 153(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provide that a subsequent completion report under Article 152(1) or 153(1) shall not be allowed after the assembly of related persons for the examination of a rehabilitation plan ends or after a decision is made to refer the rehabilitation plan to a written resolution. However, in cases where a rehabilitation creditor is unable to expect participation in the rehabilitation procedure by filing a rehabilitation claim report, etc. within the reporting period set by the rehabilitation court, despite Article 152(3) of the aforementioned Act, a supplement to the report of a rehabilitation claim shall be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 201Da256, Feb. 13, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da82439, Nov. 25, 2016). In such cases, if the rehabilitation court finds that the subsequent completion report is lawful and fails to meet the requirements for the report in the final inspection proceedings, thereby completing the judgment.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized the rehabilitation court as satisfying the requirements for the report on the completion of the subsequent report by the defendant, and determined that the special inspection date cannot be contested as to the legitimacy of the report on the completion of the subsequent report in the lawsuit of objection against the final claim inspection judgment in the instant case

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the forfeited rehabilitation claims, the requirements for recovery from defects in the report of completion of rehabilitation claims, the subject of judgment on objection to the final claim inspection judgment, and the deadline for filing the report

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 5, including attorney Lee Jong-soo, and the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the Pacific Law Firm

A. As seen earlier, the grounds that the final claim inspection judgment under Article 170 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act did not satisfy the requirements for subsequent supplementation of the report cannot be asserted. Therefore, even if there was a statement of objection as to the legitimacy of the subsequent completion report at the special inspection date, this does not constitute the “Objection” under Article 170(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which is to file a final claim inspection judgment.

In addition, whether an interested party, such as a rehabilitation creditor, who is not a custodian, raises an objection under Article 170(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act by the special investigation date, not only the details of the statement of objection made on the special investigation date, but also the reason, circumstance and method leading up to such objection, whether the custodian or other interested parties raised an objection, and the content thereof, etc., should be determined based on whether an objection made on the special investigation date arises from the intention to block the confirmation of the claim in question while bearing the responsibility for responding to the final inspection judgment procedure.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

(1) As the Defendant’s claim for damages arising from the cancellation of the sales contract for the remainder of the instant shares by the notification of the rescission of the bilateral contract by the legal administrator’s non-performance, was reported to the Plaintiff as the rehabilitation claim after the rehabilitation plan was approved in the instant rehabilitation procedure, and the rehabilitation court held a special inspection date to investigate it.

(2) At the above special inspection date, the legal administrator submitted a check to the effect that the defendant denies the rehabilitation claim that the defendant reported to complete the rehabilitation claim, and stated it.

(3) Then, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the delay of the Defendant’s report on his claim is due to the fact that he received the notice of the cancellation of a contract for the purchase and sale of shares from a statutory administrator. The legal administrator stated that the delay of the Defendant’s report on claim constitutes a cause attributable to the Defendant, and that the representative creditor company of the creditors’ conference (hereinafter “Korea bank”) also made a statement to the effect that it is in harmony

(4) The Defendant’s second and third community credit cooperatives (hereinafter “ community credit cooperatives”) expressed to the effect that the Defendant’s second and third community credit cooperatives (hereinafter “ community credit cooperatives”) are not attributable to the Defendant’s cause for delaying the Defendant’s report of rehabilitation claims, and allowing the Defendant’s report of the completion of rehabilitation claims is contrary to the interests of the existing creditors, and thus, raising an objection against the Defendant’s report of the claim.

(5) The rehabilitation court stated that only the legal administrator raised an objection as a result of the inspection of the special inspection date in the table of rehabilitation creditors and notified the defendant of the same purport.

C. We examine the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The statement of community credit cooperatives was made in the process of opposing the Defendant’s statement that the report on rehabilitation claims was delayed according to the legal custodian’s responsibility. It is nothing more than repeating the same content as the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant’s report on the completion of rehabilitation claims is unlawful. Therefore, the objection to community credit cooperatives at the special inspection date is merely a statement as to the legitimacy of the report on the completion of completion, and cannot be deemed as an objection as to the existence of rehabilitation claims or its content that should be confirmed in the final claim inspection judgment. Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s error against the legal administrator in applying for the final

In conclusion, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding interested parties’ objection, probative value of protocol, and the other party to the application for the final claim inspection judgment, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)