Whether the interruption of prescription recognized as participation in company reorganization proceedings also affects the guaranteed obligation.

The participation in the company reorganization procedure has substance as the exercise of the right by the reorganization creditor or security holder, and has the effect of interrupting prescription under Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act, and the interruption of prescription recognized as the participation in the reorganization procedure has also effect on the guaranteed obligation whose principal obligation is the reorganization company's obligation, and its effect shall remain as it continues.

Article 440 of the Civil Code, Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Da47431 Decided February 23, 1988 (Gong1988, 588) (Gong1994Sang, 719) Decided January 14, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 719) 93Da5480 Decided March 8, 1994 (Dong)

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na5842 delivered on August 24, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The participation in the company reorganization procedure has substance as the exercise of the right by the reorganization creditor or security holder, and the interruption of prescription is effective under Article 5 of the Company Reorganization Act, and the interruption of prescription recognized as the participation in the reorganization procedure also affects the obligation of the reorganization company as the principal obligation, and its effect shall continue as long as the exercise of the right as the participation continues (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2055 delivered on February 23, 198).

The guaranteed obligation is an independent obligation separate from the principal obligation, but the interruption of the prescription against the principal obligor under Article 440 of the Civil Code has its effect on the guarantor, which is not naturally effective from the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation, and it is a special provision for the protection of creditors or the security of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1569, Nov. 25, 1986). This is separate from the purport of Article 240 (2) of the Company Reorganization Act, which is a provision for relaxing the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation under the Civil Code, and it is not interpreted that the interruption of prescription against the reorganization company's obligation does not extend to the guarantor on the ground of the above provisions of the Company Reorganization Act.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendants' defense against the statute of limitations is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the statute of limitations of a surety obligation whose principal obligation covers the reorganization company's obligation as the principal obligation.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)