beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In the rehabilitation procedure of this case, Defendant B omitted the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the instant company on purpose or by negligence, and Defendant A did not perform the duty of care to correct error by examining and examining whether omitted claims were found in preparing a draft rehabilitation plan after taking office as a custodian. Although the said Defendants were notified the Plaintiff of the subsequent supplement report, they neglected to do so, thereby incurring loss upon the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the instant company due to breach of the duty of due care of a good manager. Thus, the said Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 82 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) and Article 750 of the Civil Act.
The instant company, a debtor, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages incurred by another person due to a tort committed by an administrator in connection with the performance of duties under Articles 179(1)5 and 56(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Thus, Defendant B and A are jointly and severally liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages.
B. Determination 1) In light of the purport of the system of the list of rehabilitation creditors under Article 147 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act to prevent rehabilitation creditors from suffering disadvantages in accordance with the authorization of the rehabilitation plan by failing to report their claims due to the lack of knowledge of the rehabilitation procedure, the custodian is obliged to enter the same in the list of rehabilitation creditors, unless the absence of the rehabilitation claim is objectively evident exceptional cases.
Supreme Court Order 201Da256 dated February 13, 2012