The meaning of obligations under Article 103 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act

Article 208 subparagraph 7 of the Company Reorganization Act (Article 103 (1) of the same Act) provides for a claim held by the other party as a priority claim in cases where an administrator performs the obligations pursuant to the provisions of Article 103 (1) of the same Act means a defect in maintaining equity between the parties by requiring the other party to perform the obligations of the other party if the administrator intends to claim the other party's performance. However, the obligations of the company and the other party refer to the obligations on the same consideration as each other under bilateral contract and are related to the contractual obligations, but it does not constitute a simple obligation for cooperation.

Article 208 subparagraph 7 of the Company Reorganization Act, and Article 103 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the applicant

Respondent of Korea Development Corporation and the Respondent of Korea Development Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na22802 delivered on November 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 208 subparagraph 7 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the claim held by the other party as a priority claim in cases where the administrator performs the obligation pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the same Act refers to a claim for the performance of the other party's obligation if the administrator intends to claim the performance of the other party's obligation, which means that the maintenance of equity between the parties is defective by allowing the other party to perform the obligations under the contract. However, the obligations of the company and the other party in this case refer to the obligations equivalent to the other party's bilateral contract, and even if they are related to the contractual obligations, the obligation to cooperate such as the theory of lawsuit does not constitute a specific obligation, and thus, it does not constitute an incidental obligation.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below that recognized the right to be preserved in this case as a reorganization claim is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to reorganization claims and public-interest claims such as theory of lawsuit, and the respondent asserts that the right to be preserved in this case constitutes a reorganization claim, and it cannot be viewed as a assertion contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, the judgment of the court below was not affected

Therefore, this 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 on the bench, on the ground that there is an error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)