[1] Whether the convertible bonds which waived the conversion right before the expiration of the period for requesting conversion are fixed as a general bond (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that interest bonds shall also be included in reorganization claims where the right to convert is not exercised during the period of exercise of the right to conversion and the right to convert is waived after the company reorganization procedure commenced for the company issuing convertible bonds

[1] The right to convert convertible bonds into stocks has its effect at the time of requesting the conversion, and it is a formative right that does not require the company's consent separately. Thus, even if the parties expressed their intent to waive the conversion right, the right to conversion becomes final and conclusive as bonds of the same nature as general bonds which are not recognized if the parties expressed their intention to renounce

[2] The case holding that in a case where the company which issued convertible bonds gives up the right to convert to the above convertible bonds after the commencement of company reorganization procedure for the company which issued convertible bonds by adding the amount calculated by welfare interest to the principal, 11% guarantee rate per annum for the bonds for which the right to conversion was not exercised during the period of exercise of the right to conversion, the above convertible bonds shall be confirmed as bonds for which the right to conversion is not recognized, and the above interest claim shall have arisen before the commencement of reorganization procedure, and even if the waiver of the above right to conversion was made after the commencement of reorganization procedure, the creditor may seek confirmation of the reorganization claim against

[1] Articles 513 and 515 of the Commercial Code / [2] Article 102 of the Company Reorganization Act

Mobilization Securities Co., Ltd. and five others (Law Firm Hunting, Attorney Jeong Il-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Administrator of Korea Development Bank (Attorney final attitude of Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. With respect to a reorganization company, a special lecture corporation:

A. The plaintiff mobilization securities corporation shall pay a subordinated reorganization claim of KRW 774,368,293 and KRW 2,670,000,000 per annum from June 1, 1998 to the approval date of the reorganization plan for the above reorganization company, which is the amount calculated by the annual welfare in proportion to 11% per annum;

B. The Plaintiff International Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. shall pay the subordinated reorganization claim of KRW 200,117,648 and the amount of KRW 690,00,000 per annum from June 1, 1998 until the approval date of the reorganization plan for the above reorganization company, which is calculated with 11% annual welfare;

C. The plaintiff Song-gu's interference with reorganization claims of 52,204,604 won and 180,000,000 won per annum from June 1, 1998 to the approval date of the reorganization plan for the above reorganization company; subordinate reorganization claims of 11% per annum;

D. The plaintiff Lee Jong-soo and the plaintiff Kim Young-deok shall each constitute a subordinate reorganization claim of 27,52,429 won in amount, and each of 95,00,000 won in amount, calculated by the annual welfare in proportion to 11% per annum from June 1, 1998 to the approval date of the reorganization plan for the above reorganization company;

E. The plaintiff Lee beneficiary confirmed that the amount of the reorganization claim of 8,700,767 won and 30,000,000 won per annum from June 1, 1998 to the approval date of the reorganization plan for the above reorganization company is each subordinate reorganization claim of 11% per annum.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, and Gap evidence 7-1 to 3-3.

A. On December 19, 195, the Plaintiff Mobilization Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Mobilization Securities Co., Ltd.”) changed its trade name as of Apr. 2, 1996 with respect to the 38th Guarantee Convertible Bonds issued by the Restructuring Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Mobilization Securities Co., Ltd.”) the total amount of KRW 20 million in total and the sales of the outstanding bonds. As to the outstanding balance of the outstanding bonds, the above Plaintiff Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for total acceptance and sales with the court on June 1, 1998, with the total amount of face value of the bonds and the total value of the bearer bonds issued on Dec. 26, 1995, the total amount of face value of the bonds and KRW 200 million in total, KRW 10 million in total, KRW 500 in total and KRW 100 in total, and KRW 100 in total, 500 in the face value of each bond.

B. Meanwhile, at the time of the issuance of the above bonds, the reorganization company shall set at 0% per annum the interest rate of the bonds, and at the rate of 11% per annum with respect to the bonds for which the conversion right has not been exercised during the period for exercising the conversion right, with respect to the repayment method and time period of the bonds, the amount calculated by adding the difference between the rate of return on guarantee and the interest rate of the bonds to the principal on December 31, 2000, and the interest payment date was agreed as of December 27, 1995, the next day of the issuance of the bonds, and at the time of the submission of the conversion claim, the period for exercising the conversion right was agreed from June 26, 1996 to November 30, 200.

C. The Plaintiff mobilization securities subscribed to the total issuance price of the above convertible bonds issued by the reorganization company in accordance with the above total subscription and sales contract and sold them upon receiving a general subscription under the conditions stipulated in the above contract. The Plaintiff purchased the above bonds directly and acquired the bonds, as the total amount of KRW 2.67 million was not sold from No. 1 to No. 534 up to 5.34,00,000,000 won.

D. Meanwhile, Plaintiff International Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff International Fire”) acquired each corporate bonds with a total of KRW 6,90,000,000,000,000 from No. 678 to 815,000,000,000 for total of KRW 36,000,000,000 from No. 596 to 631,00,000,000 for total of KRW 19,50,000,000,000 from No. 651 to 669,00,000,000 for total of KRW 19,50,000,000,000 from No. 554 to 559.

E. On June 1, 1998, the Seoul District Court rendered a decision to commence a company reorganization procedure for the reorganization company as of June 1, 1998 and appointed the defendant as the administrator.

F. On July 1, 1998, the Plaintiffs reported the interest calculated at the welfare from the day following the issuance of bonds to the maturity date pursuant to the interest rate of 11% per annum (the difference between 11% per annum of guarantee and 0% per annum of bonds) with respect to each of the above principal and the above principal as reorganization claim against the company reorganization in the above court. On July 15, 1998, the Defendant filed an objection on the ground that the Plaintiffs recognized only the principal of each of the above bonds among the above bonds reported by the Plaintiffs at the date of investigation into reorganization claims in the above case of reorganization claims, and raised an objection on the ground that they

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs seek confirmation of reorganization claims, since interest claims on the principal of the above bonds have arisen due to reasons before the commencement of reorganization proceedings.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since the period of exercise of the right to conversion has not expired, so long as the plaintiffs' exercise the right to conversion against the above bonds has not become final and conclusive, the above interest claim cannot be deemed to have arisen from the cause before the commencement

3. Determination

A. We examine the following facts: The right to convert each of the above convertible bonds into shares takes effect at the time of requesting conversion, and it does not require the company's approval separately. Since the above interest claim is recognized only for bonds which do not exercise the right to conversion within the exercise period of the right to conversion, the plaintiffs' assertion seeking confirmation of reorganization claim against the above interest claim includes the intent to waive the right to conversion based on the above bonds under its premise. It is reasonable to view that the complaint containing the expression of intent to waive the right to conversion was served on the defendant on September 2, 1998. Accordingly, the above convertible bonds were confirmed as debentures for which the right to conversion was not recognized by the waiver of the above conversion right. Further, even if the cause of the above interest claim occurred before the commencement of reorganization proceedings and the waiver of the above conversion right was made after the commencement of reorganization proceedings, the plaintiffs can seek confirmation of reorganization claim against the principal of each of the above bonds.

B. Furthermore, as to the scope of interest claim on the principal of each of the above bonds held by the plaintiffs, the interest rate of 11% per annum for each of the principal of the bonds held by the plaintiffs from December 27, 1995 to May 31, 1998, which was from May 31, 1998, prior to the date of the decision to commence the company reorganization proceedings, shall be as shown in the attached Table (1) to 74,368,293 for the plaintiff mobilization securities, 200,117,648 for the plaintiff mobilization securities, 200,117,648 for the plaintiff's international fire, and 52,204,604 for the plaintiff mobilization and Kim Young-young, and 27,52,429 for the plaintiff Lee Jong-young, and 8,700,767 for the plaintiff Lee Jong-young, each of the above plaintiffs shall have a reorganization claim equivalent to each of the above amounts.

In addition, with respect to the principal of each of the above bonds, the plaintiffs shall hold a subordinated reorganization claim pursuant to Article 121, Paragraph 1 of the Company Reorganization Act with respect to the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 11% from June 1, 1998, which is the commencement date of the above company reorganization procedure, until the approval date of the reorganization plan.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

Judges Jeong Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)