(a) Qualification of a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a reorganization creditor for confirmation of claims;

B. The party to the case where the party’s indication was “the Nonparty on whose behalf the administrator of Korea Development Bank was the administrator of Korea Development Bank.”

1. Where an objection is raised by a specific person, other than a reorganization company, regarding reorganization claims reported within the prescribed period, due to a decision on commencing reorganization procedures under the Company Reorganization Act, the objection raised by a reorganization creditor against any of the stock companies shall be the defendant;

2. Where the indication of the party is deemed to be the Nonparty on the behalf of the administrator of the Korea Development Bank or the Nonparty on the behalf of the administrator of the Korea Development Bank or the Korea Development Bank, the indication of the party may be deemed

Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act, Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Sang64 Decided July 9, 1957

Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea Development Bank in Japan

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na676 delivered on June 7, 1979

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim under Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act is a special lawsuit under the Company Reorganization Act for which the receiver or administrator of the reorganization company except for reorganization company, reorganization creditors, security holders, and stockholders have an objection to the reorganization claim reported by the right holder, and that the lawsuit is filed against the defendant who is the reorganization company, not against the administrator of the defendant company, the Korea Development Bank (the commercial bank at the original market shall be deemed to be a clerical error) who is the plaintiff's objection, but against the defendant who is the reorganization company, not against the defendant who is the defendant, and it is obvious by the gushe itself that the lawsuit of this case is filed against the defendant who is the reorganization company. Thus, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff is illegal against the defendant company who is not the defendant qualified to be dismissed, and the decision of the first instance court which dismissed the lawsuit to the same purport is affirmed.

2. Article 147 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that in a case where there is an objection against a certain person, other than a reorganization company, with respect to reorganization claims reported within the prescribed period of time due to a commencement order of reorganization proceedings under the Company Reorganization Act, a person holding a right to such reorganization claims may file a claim for confirmation of such right by filing a lawsuit against such person. Therefore, a claim confirmation lawsuit filed by a reorganization creditor is the time of original adjudication that the person who is not the reorganization company shall be the defendant. In light of the records, it is clear that the Korea Development Bank, the administrator of the above reorganization company, raises an objection against the plaintiff's report on reorganization claims

However, when considering the party indication of this guar, the defendant of this lawsuit is the above reorganization company, considering that the above reorganization company is referred to as the defendant even during the process of the claim, the defendant of this lawsuit is the above reorganization company.

However, as seen above, a lawsuit for confirmation of reorganization claim is understood as stating that an objection shall be the defendant, and when there is a decision to commence company reorganization procedure, an objection shall be excluded here, and when there is a decision to commence company reorganization procedure, the administrator shall be exclusively responsible to the administrator for the management and disposal of the business of the reorganization company and the assets (Article 53 of the same Act). This manager is not an institution representing or constituting the reorganization company, but an independent third party (see Articles 94 and 97 of the same Act), which is separate from the above reorganization company, with the authority and status recognized under the above reorganization act, and the above indication is understood as stating that the reorganization company is an intermediary, or an independent third party (see Articles 94 and 97 of the same Act). According to the plaintiff's written statement on February 8, 1979 as stated in the court below's oral argument, according to the plaintiff's written statement on the same day, the above case is ordered to the Korea Development

In addition, if the defendant is designated as the above reorganization company as shown in the judgment below, the administrator is not the representative agency of the reorganization company as seen above, so the above reorganization company should be deemed not to perform a litigation by a legitimate representative. In this regard, it should be viewed as unlawful first of all, and the judgment of the court below that held that the defendant's designation of this case was erroneous as the administrator is the representative agency of the reorganization company, and there is an error of law by understanding the party's indication of the complaint and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the administrator, even though it is erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without merit and contrary to this, it cannot avoid reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)