[1] The criteria for determining whether a reorganization claim against the old management owner and the major shareholder of the reorganization company and the persons related to them can be provided with more unfavorable conditions than other general reorganization claims

[2] The case holding that it is equitable to exempt the person with special interest in the old management of the reorganization company from the full amount of reorganization claims arising from lending the price acquired by the disposal of shares immediately before the application for company reorganization procedure

[3] The case holding that an extension of the period of repayment for the reorganization claim acquired with independent property by a person with a special relationship with the former managing company does not go against the principle of equity but it is against the principle of equity in full

[4] The case holding that it is against equity to exempt a non-permanent director in a special relationship with the old management owner of the reorganization company from the total amount of reorganization claims equivalent to the indemnity amount acquired by him/her in his/her own property and paying the debt of the reorganization company guaranteed by him

[5] Where part of a reorganization program is contrary to equity, the case holding that the appellate court changed the order of the court below that the reorganization program is approved by setting forth a provision for protection of rights

[1] The meaning of "equality" under Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act refers not to formal equality, but to substantive equality that is not contrary to the concept of fairness and fairness. Determination of unfavorable conditions with respect to reorganization claims of the former management owner, major shareholders or those related to them, which cause their bankruptcy status, is not contrary to the principle of equality, and determination of unfavorable conditions with regard to the reorganization claims of the former management owner, major shareholders or those related to them does not go against the principle of equality. Determination of which degree of unfavorable conditions can be made should be made after comprehensively examining the bankruptcy status of the company and the degree of liability of former management, specific relationship between the former management owner and reorganization creditors, the time when reorganization claims occur, the background of occurrence, the period of maturity

[2] The case holding that, in light of the fact that a reorganization claim held by a person with a special relationship with the former management owner of the reorganization company incurred by leasing to the reorganization company the price acquired by disposing of the shares held by such person immediately before the application for the company reorganization procedure, the shares of such person with special relationship are jointly liable for the former management insolvency in support of the exercise of the management rights of the former management principle, and that the shares of general shareholders are retired from the reorganization plan to 1/5, exemption from the total reorganization claims of such

[3] The case holding that an extension of the period of repayment for the reorganization claim acquired with independent property by a person with a special relationship with the former managing company does not go against equity, but it is against equity in full.

[4] The case holding that it is against equity to exempt a person in a special relationship with the former management owner of the reorganization company from the total amount of reorganization claims equivalent to the indemnity amount acquired after the joint and several sureties for the company's obligation on the ground that he is a non-standing director without receiving a monthly wage from the reorganization company or receiving any consideration, and repaying the joint and several sureties's obligation with the

[5] In a case where part of a reorganization plan is contrary to equity, the case holding that the appellate court changed the order of the court below that it approves the reorganization plan by applying mutatis mutandis Article 234 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act.

[1] Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act, / [2] Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act, / [3] Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act, / [4] Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act, / [5] Article 234 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act

[1]

Supreme Court Order 88Ma266 dated July 25, 1989 (Gong1997Sang, 285)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 1 and 16 others (Attorney Seo-tae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Manager of the other party corporation (Law Firm Dongyang, Attorneys Seo Seo-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 93Ma4460 dated June 24, 1996

Supreme Court Order 97Na16 Decided July 9, 1997

The order of the court below is modified as follows.

For the appellant 1, 2, and 3, the provisions on the protection of rights shall be determined as shown in the attached Form, and the reorganization plan of this case shall be approved.

An appellant shall dismiss all appeals of 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 or 11.

All appeals filed by the appellant 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 and two remaining appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed.

The original judgment shall be cancelled and a reasonable judgment shall be sought again.

1. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The reorganization company was a company established on January 7, 1958 for the purpose of the manufacture of medicine and chemical medicine, chemical medicine, medical appliances, and sanitary materials, and marketing of products. At the time of the application for company reorganization procedure, the representative director was one other than the appeal.

(b) Examining the process following the application for commencement of company reorganization procedures for the reorganization company to the approval of the reorganization plan:

September 13, 1993. Commencement of company reorganization procedures and application for preservation of company property

On October 23, 1993, Decisions on preservative measures on company property

July 1, 1994, decision on the commencement of company reorganization procedures

On August 29, 1994, the date of investigation into the first meeting of interested persons, and reorganization claims and securities;

on December 30, 1994, the submission of reorganization programs

May 31, 1995. Amendment of reorganization programs

May 17, 1996 amended Reorganization Programs

On June 24, 1996, the special investigation date of reorganization claims, the holding of meetings of interested persons for the examination and resolution of reorganization programs, and the resolution of reorganization programs;

June 24, 1996

C. All the appellants are persons with a special relationship with others 1, the appellant 1 is his wife, the appellant 12, the appellant 13 is his wife, the appellant 2, 14, 15, and 16, the appellant 3 is his wife, the appellant 3 is his wife, the appellant 5, the appellant 6, 7, 8 is his mother, the appellant 5, the appellant 6, 7, and 8 is his wife, the appellant 9 is his wife, the appellant 10 is his wife, and the appellant 11 is his mother.

(1) On August 29, 1994, the appellant 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 reported that there was a claim for each amount stated in the "principal" in the table of 1. in attached Form 1., and confirmed as a reorganization claim on August 29, 1994, since there was no objection from the reorganization creditor, security holder, and stockholder;

(2) The appellant 2 and the appellant 3 stand joint and several suretiess for the obligations of the reorganization company during the period in which they are in office as a director of the reorganization company. The appellant 2 guaranteed the obligations of the reorganization company to the Credit Guarantee Fund as of September 27, 1993, and the appellant 2 guaranteed the obligations of the reorganization company to the guarantee insurance company against the reorganization company, and as of September 20 of the same year, the appellant 2 guaranteed the obligations of the reorganization company against the guarantee insurance company against the reorganization company, each provisional attachment was made against the real estate owned by the appellant 2 and 3 in the attached Form from the Credit Guarantee Fund and the Guarantee Insurance Company against the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and if the procedure for the future compulsory execution is conducted or repayment of the guaranteed obligations is made, the

(3) The appellant 4 is a common share 6,416 shares, the appellant 5 is an ordinary share 704 shares, the appellant 6 is an ordinary share 76 shares; the appellant 7 is an ordinary share 1,920 shares; the appellant 8 is an ordinary share 454 shares; the appellant 9 is an ordinary share 919 shares and the preferential share 372 shares; the appellant 10 is an ordinary share 2,084 shares and the preferential share 842 shares; the appellant 1 is an ordinary share 200 shares and the preferential share 40 shares; the appellant 11 is a shareholder who has the preferential share 20 shares.

D. The reorganization programs approved on the same day by submitting the receiver and adopted at the meeting of interested persons for the examination and resolution of the reorganization programs on June 24, 1996:

(1) As to each reorganization claim of the appellant referred to in Section 4 of Chapter II, Section 4, Section 2, Section 2 (2) (2) and Section 2 of other claims (28), the appellant shall pay in lump sum in the 13th year in relation to each reorganization claim referred to in Section 1 (d) (28), and in the course of reorganization proceedings where a third party acquires management rights of the reorganization company (including where a third party who expresses his/her intention to acquire management rights or is dispatched a manager), his/her obligations shall be fully exempted (hereinafter referred to as this part is exempted from reorganization claims, etc. of this case);

(2) The claim for indemnity acquired against a specially related person listed in Section 6 of Chapter II, Section 3. (29) of the Future Claim for Reimbursement, as well as 1, 2, and 3, and "other than appeal 1 and the specially related person" in the attached Form shall be exempted in full from the claim for indemnity, by subrogation, etc., against the company responsible for reorganization (hereinafter this part shall be exempted from the claim for indemnity);

(3) From among the shares of the appellant stated in Section 2 of Chapter 7, Section 2, Section 2, Section 3, Section 3, above of Section 3, the appeal shall be made to retire all the remaining shares except for 100 common shares of 9, the appellant and 1, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant share retirement clause”).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. That led to the reorganization procedure of the reorganization company, the representative director, and 1 other than the above appeal, did not intentionally defaulted due to poor management while hiding or concealing the company's property, or his relative. Rather, in order to prevent the reorganization company from raising its funds under the circumstances where it is difficult to raise its funds, their relative relatives raised funds to the reorganization company or borne its guaranteed liability, and thus, their reorganization claim or indemnity claim should not be treated separately from other general reorganization claim or indemnity claim.

B. Nevertheless, unlike the fact that the provisions such as the exemption from the reorganization claim in this case provide that other reorganization creditors shall pay in installments the principal and interest during the period from the first to the 13th year, it is difficult to say that the appellant as referred to in paragraph (1) of the above 1.C. shall make a lump sum repayment in the last year under the reorganization plan solely on the ground that the appellant is a related party with the relationship with the above non-appeal 1, and that if a third party acquires the management right, the above appellant shall be exempted from all the reorganization claims, without reasonable grounds, it shall be treated significantly differently from general financial institution claims, general commercial transaction claims, and other claims.

C. As regards the appellant 2 and the appellant 3 who become a guarantor for the reorganization company, it is not necessary to distinguish them from other obligees, and as regards all the above immovables owned by the appellant who are subject to provisional seizure from creditors of the reorganization company, regardless of the reorganization company, the provisions of this case, such as the exemption of the reorganization claim, which provide that they shall exempt the creditors of the reorganization company from the future right to indemnity acquired by them in the course of their performance of the guaranteed obligation, shall be in violation of equity.

D. In addition, the cause of the commencement of the reorganization proceedings in this case is not caused by the bad management or intentional default, but by the above appellants 1 and 1, even though they made all efforts to prevent the bankruptcy of the reorganization company, they were in default due to the failure to perform the financing plan. Thus, the provision on the retirement of the shares in this case, in which the appellants 1. C. (3) of the above 1. (excluding 1) (excluding Appellants 1) have almost retired their shares on the sole basis of the formal relationship between the above appellants 1 and 1, the above appellants excluding Appellants 1,

E. Therefore, since the reorganization plan of this case is contrary to the principle of equality under Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act and does not meet the requirement of "a plan under Article 233 (1) 2 of the same Act must be fair, equitable, and feasible," the order of the court below that approved it should be revoked.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine the appeal as to the provision on the retirement of the instant stocks by the appellant as described in the above 1.C. (3) (excluding the appellant 1)

Article 237 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that a stockholder who fails to report shall not file an immediate appeal against the decision of the approval body of the reorganization plan, and Article 130 of the same Act provides that a stockholder who intends to participate in the reorganization procedure shall report his name, address, type and number of stocks to the court within the reporting period as determined by the court, and submit stock certificates and other evidentiary documents or a certified copy or abstract thereof to the court. The above appellant shall not, even though the court of original judgment decided on July 1, 1994 when the reporting period of the reorganization claim, securities, and stocks was set on the same date by July 30 of the same year, and he did not report his stocks within the said period, and it is apparent in the record that the procedure for the subsequent report was not followed even until the special fraud protocol such as the reorganization claim, etc. on June 24, 1996. Thus, the above appellant's appeal is unlawful without need to further determine [it is unlawful as to the above stocks in whole as seen in Article 237 (2) (3)(b) of equity.

B. We examine the appeal by the appellant described in paragraph (1) of the above 1. C as to the exemption of the reorganization claim of this case, etc.

(1) Article 229 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the conditions of the reorganization plan shall be equal among persons who hold rights of the same nature. The meaning of equality refers not to formal equality, but to substantive equality that does not go against the concept of fairness and equity. Determination of unfavorable conditions with regard to the reorganization claims of the old management owner, large shareholder, or a person who is related to the company, which led to the bankruptcy of the company, does not go against the above principle of equality, and determination of unfavorable conditions with regard to the reorganization claims of the former management owner, large shareholder, or a person who is related to the company, does not go against the above principle of equality. Determination of which degree of unfavorable conditions can be made should be made by comprehensively examining the bankruptcy status of the company, the degree of liability of the former management principle, specific relationship between the former management owner and reorganization creditor, the time when the

(2) According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

(A) The liquidation company was established by the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1' on January 7, 1958 and listed on the Stock Exchange on November 10, 1973. The non-party 1's non-party 3's above non-party 1 was appointed as the representative director on September 1, 1980 and resigned around September 1, 1982. The non-party 1 and his relative son owned 15.82% (316,396 shares of the liquidation company as of December 31, 1992) among the shares of the liquidation company.

(B) The capital of the reorganization company was KRW 1.5 billion on September 1, 1982, and was increased by KRW 2.25 million on December 10, 1986, KRW 6.75 million on April 30, 1988, KRW 7.7625 billion on July 21, 1990, KRW 7.77625 billion on July 21, 1990, KRW 10 billion on August 31, 1990, and KRW 4,000 on April 1986.

(C) Although net income has been generated by 191, 192, 1.5 billion won in 193, 3.5 billion won in 193, and 4.5 billion won in 193, as at the time of the commencement of the company reorganization procedure, the liquidation company had continuously increased its business status at the time of the company reorganization, and upon examining the cause of such failure, 12 billion won in 200,000 won in 4,000 won in 200,000 won in 200,000 won in 4,000,000 won in 199,000 won in 20,000 won in 19,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 19,000 won in 19,00 won in 20,000 won in 19,000 won in 19,00 won in 3.

(D) As of June 30, 1993, as of June 31, 1993, 50 billion won in assets, 45.9 billion won in assets, 4.1 billion won in capital, 49.1 billion won in assets, 35.1 billion won in assets, 35.1 billion won in capital, and 14.1 billion won in capital as of December 31, 1993. However, as a result of examining the property status of the liquidation company by an inspector appointed by the court of original judgment in accordance with the general accepted standards and standards for accounting audit, an amount exceeding 36.4 billion won in assets, 4.2 billion won in assets, 4.4 billion won in assets, 5.3 billion won in assets, the amount exceeding 1.5 billion won in assets, as of December 31, 1993, and the amount exceeding 1.5 billion won in assets of the liquidation company in the status of the liquidation company.

(E) From July 14, 1993 to July 19, 1993, when the reorganization company’s financial structure has deteriorated, 120,00 won per share out of 180,282 shares which were directly kept by it or offered to a financial institution for security loan, and sale at least KRW 1.8 billion per share; and on the other hand, on the grounds that the sum of 1,23,12,13,13,14,15,16, 4, 7, and 8 shares issued at the time of deposit account in the name of 600,000 won per share; on the grounds that the sum of 1,50,000 won per share and 1,700,000 won per share, 3,000,000,000 won per share issued at the time of deposit account in the name of 60,000 won per share; on the grounds that the aggregate of shares was sold at the time of deposit account in the Seoul Bank.

(F) On the other hand, on June 14, 1985, the appellant 1 opened a securities account at the securities pressure stop point and continuously deposited securities transaction. On July 21, 1993, the appellant 1 deposited the amount of KRW 500 million from the above branch office on July 21, 1993. He received four copies of the cashier's checks of KRW 100 million in the amount of KRW 20 million in the amount of KRW 4,000,000 in the amount of KRW 10,000 in the cashier's checks, and remitted the remaining checks other than the cashier's checks of KRW 10,000 in the amount to KRW 10,000 in the name of the reorganization company to the passbook's bank settlement account. Accordingly, the non-Appellant 1 issued a promissory note to the above appellant 1 as KRW 510,000 in the name of the reorganization company.

(G) Accordingly, during the period from July 27, 1994 to July 29, 1994, the appellant filed a report as reorganization claim on the above claim amounting to KRW 2,065,00,000,00 from July 27, 1994 based on the above cash custody certificate and promissory note. The administrator of the reorganization company at the time, non-appeal 2 does not include the basis for the issuance of the above cash custody certificate and promissory note, the payment of the price for issuance, and the place of use. However, as a result of the investigation conducted by the above investigator, the above investigator's balance sheet was counted as KRW 1,827,00,00 as the amount of the provisional loan of the representative director at the time, but there was no accurate evidence as to whom the amount was borrowed from anyone on the account book, and thus, it is not clear whether the above amount of the provisional cash custody or the amount of the promissory note against the above company's obligations, despite its authenticity or absence of evidence.

(H) Since the reorganization company is a listed corporation, although the above representative director, the above appeals 1, who was the representative director, was aware of material information that was not open to the public in connection with the business of the reorganization company, was prohibited from selling and buying securities through the use of such information. However, the statute of limitations has expired as of September 7, 1994, since 240,249 shares equivalent to 75% out of 316,396 shares of which the appellant and the above appellant were held prior to their application due to the aggravation of the company's financial situation, were disposed of in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act before the application.

(i) The trading price of the stock exchange per stock of the reorganization company was the amount of KRW 15,00 or KRW 16,000 on July 1, 1993 where the above-mentioned stocks were disposed of. However, on September 1, 1996, KRW 10,200 on the application of the company reorganization procedure, KRW 9,100 on September 13, 1996, KRW 5,300 on November 1, 1994 where the decision to commence the company reorganization procedure was issued, and KRW 2,420 on July 1, 1995 where KRW 2,820 on the issuance of the company reorganization procedure, and KRW 3,80 on July 1, 1996.

(j) On the other hand, the reorganization program adopted at the meeting of interested parties on June 24, 1996 determined that the reorganization program shall be repaid in installments from the first year to the 9th year, and the first year to the 13th year, as seen above, the reorganization claim shall be paid in installments. On the other hand, as to the shares, the shares shall be retired most of the shares of the non-appeal 1 and their related parties, as seen above, and the shares of the non-appeal 1 and their related parties shall be combined with each of the common share and priority share, and the new shares shall be issued to the non-appeal 1,536,416 and the new shares shall be reduced and issued to the non-appeal 1,536,416. After the decision to authorize the above reorganization program, the receiver of the reorganization company issued the new shares on July 29, 1996 and the bidding procedure on August 12, 196, and the lower court on December 16, 1992 to the non-appeal 20,00000,4000 shares.

(3) First, we examine reorganization claims of 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 reported on the basis of cash custody certificate.

(A) Although the above grounds for reorganization claim of the appellant are unclear and it is not clear whether the claim is a claim against an individual against the above appellant or a claim against the reorganization company, it was acknowledged as reorganization claim because the receiver of the reorganization company did not raise any objection against it, and even if non-appeal 1 used the proceeds of disposal of the above appellant's shares as the funds of the reorganization company by entering the above appellant 1 for the liquidation company, it is an act in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by disposing of shares of non-appeal 1 and the above appellant prior to the above appellant's application for the reorganization company reorganization procedure without concealing the situation where the management situation of the reorganization company becomes worse, and thus, it is extremely unfair that shareholders who acquired shares with 15,00 won or 16,000 won per share as at the time they knew of such fact and received shares with 5 shares under the above reorganization plan have been merged with 10,000 won and suffered substantial loss from the above disposal of shares, and thus, it is more reasonable that the above shares have been disposed of under the same price of shares as 150,00 won.

(B) Furthermore, whether it is reasonable for the appellant to give any treatment when he continued to hold shares;

1) The liquidation company has been exercising the right to manage the liquidation company from around 1975 when the non-party 1, who was his own child, died after the establishment of the company other than the network and 3. However, if the non-party 1, who was his child, worked as the representative director from around 1975, exercised the right to manage the liquidation company, before the capital increase on December 10, 1986, 1.5 billion won was increased rapidly by 10 billion won after the capital increase on August 31, 1990, while the shares of non-party 1, such as the above 9.01% shares and 6.81% shares of the above non-party 1, as well as shares of a related party, such as the above non-party 1, who was the relative of the above non-party 1, had no longer been able to exercise management right as above (the non-party 1, as the above-party 1's shares and shares were more favorable than the above shares to secure the above shares (the above non-party 1).

2) In addition, as of the beginning of 1988, the liquidation company's failure was 2.25 million won capital as of the beginning of 198, and the value of fixed assets was 4.2 billion won. Since 1989, it was not easy to raise funds due to the invasion of the securities market and real estate market since then 1989, 15 billion won was newly constructed for 3 years from the date of 1989 to the date of 1991.5 billion won as of the date of the liquidation company's failure, which caused the shortage of funds, and if the above 1.5 billion won shares were issued by the management company's resolution, such as accumulating liabilities from the above 1.5 billion won shares to the date of the execution of the reorganization plan, it seems that the above 1.5 billion won shares were completely settled by the reorganization company's failure, and that the above 1.5 billion won shares were more than the above 1.5 billion won shares issued by the reorganization plan, and that the above 1.5 billion won shares were no more than the above 1.3.5 billion shares were issued by the reorganization plan.

(C) Therefore, if the above appellant holds shares as it is, it is consistent with the balance between the above appellant and other reorganization creditors and shareholders. The above reorganization program is exempted if a third party acquires the management right of the reorganization company, but if a third party does not take over it, it is determined that the amount of the reorganization claim is repaid in the 13th year, which would be favorable to the above appellant. Therefore, the above appellant's assertion that the reorganization program is treated remarkably disadvantageously to the general financial institution's claims, general commercial claims, other claims, etc. without reasonable grounds is without merit.

(4) We examine one reorganization claim reported as a reorganization claim based on the following promissory notes.

The above appellant 1's reorganization claim is not clear in the account book of the reorganization company, and it is recognized as reorganization claim because the receiver of the reorganization company did not raise any objection against the claim against the above appellant 1 or a claim against the reorganization company. In addition, considering that the above appellant 1 is a relative relative to the above appellant 1, it is not reasonable to treat the above appellant 1 equally with other reorganization claims. Thus, it does not go against equity to determine that the above appellant 1's reorganization claim shall be repaid in lump sum in the 13th year more unfavorable than other reorganization claims as provided by the first to pay in installments during the 13th year from the first to the 13th year. However, considering that the above appellant 1's reorganization claim is not the price obtained by disposing of the shares of the reorganization company, unlike the above other appellant 1's reorganization claim, if it is considered that the above appellant 1 disposes of the shares of another company held by him, the part which is excessively unfavorable to the above appellant 1's above appeal is acknowledged as being in violation of equity.

C. Next, the appellant 2 and the appellant 3 shall be deemed to have filed an appeal against the exemption clause of the right to indemnity of this case.

(1) According to the records of this case, the appellant 2 and the appellant 3 as non-standing directors of the reorganization company's joint and several sureties's non-standing directors. From July 12, 1985 to 617-5, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the appellant 2 operated dental practice as a dental doctor and operated dental practice as a partner of the Central University's associate professor. The appellant 3, the above appellant 1, as its father, has been operating an oriental medical doctor's business as the head of the above non-appeal 1, and the appellant 2 did not directly participate in the management of the reorganization company and did not receive a fixed monthly wage from the reorganization company, and the above appellant 2, the appellant 2 acquired the above apartment's disposal price and the amount borrowed from the credit union's "2/3 real estate Table" as stated in the attached Table 2, 99, 195, 2.5, 96, 196, 2.5, 96, 196, 2, 96, 2, 95, 2, 3.

(2) There is a reasonable ground that it is reasonable that the above appellant who has guaranteed the debt of the reorganization company for the reason that he is a part-time director of the liquidation company without being paid a monthly salary or any other consideration, to exempt the liquidation company from the total amount of future indemnity claims acquired by the liquidation company due to the performance of the joint and several liability obligations, unlike other reorganization claims. Thus, it is difficult to distinguish the above appellant 1 from the above appellant 1 in order to conceal or deduct the assets of the liquidation company, or to acquire the assets in his relative name, including the above appellant 1, or formed the profits acquired by operating the liquidation company or the assets of the above appellant from the above appellant 1 without being paid a monetary help from the above appellant 1. Rather, it does not seem that the above appellant has an independent revenue source unrelated to the liquidation company and it seems that the above appellant formed property through his own effort, and it is extremely contrary to the reorganization creditor's ability to acquire the above real estate's future indemnity or other rights acquired by the above appellant due to the above appellant 3's investment trust or other rights acquired by his own effort.

(3) The administrator of the reorganization company asserts that the above appellant shall not be treated equally with other reorganization creditors because he/she has borne the obligation on behalf of the reorganization company. However, the above reorganization plan provides that the principal, transitional interest, and interest accrued in the order of the last year repayment in the case of the payment by subrogation shall be appropriated in the reverse order from the estimated amount of the principal, interest accrued in the case of the payment by subrogation. Thus, even if the appellant 2 and the appellant 3 have subrogated the obligee, the obligee shall first receive the reimbursement by performing the guaranteed obligation and exercise the right to reimbursement by subrogation of the obligee, and even if he/she has subrogated the obligee, the obligee shall exercise the right to reimbursement by subrogation of the obligee in preference to other reorganization creditors. Therefore, it is insufficient to exempt the obligee from the right to reimbursement by performing the guaranteed obligation of the above appellant regardless of the above other reorganization company.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by 1, 2, and 11 on the exemption of the reorganization claim of this case and the appeal filed by 2, 3 on the exemption clause of the right to indemnity of this case are well-grounded. In light of the various circumstances as seen above, if the protection clause of rights is prescribed for 1, 2, and 3 on the grounds that it does not violate the equity with other reorganization creditors, and the above reorganization plan is legitimate as a whole and does not infringe upon other interested parties' rights, by applying Article 234 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act, the order of the court below that determines the above protection provision and approves the above reorganization plan shall be changed by applying Article 234 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act, and the appeal filed by 4,5,6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the appellant shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the remaining appeal filed by 12,13, 14, 15, 16, and the appeal shall be dismissed as per the order.

Judges Lee Yong-deok (Presiding Judge)