해외 바카라 사이트

1. Who did Barun Law represent?

​We represented Seoul Security Insurance 해외 바카라 사이트., Ltd. (as a defendant) which had the status of a principal debtor and a creditor in relationship with a joint guarantor (who was a plaintiff).

​2. The progress of the trial and our role

​On August 11, 2014, a rehabilitation proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff. In the rehabilitation proceeding, the defendant declared the full amount of a future claim that it held against the plaintiff as a rehabilitation claim. Thereafter, the defendant was paid part of the claim by executing security interest in the primary debtor. The plaintiff made a claim for a trial to seek a confirmation of non-existence of debt to the effect that the balance of the future claim left after excluding the portion paid to the defendant should be recognized as a rehabilitation claim. Both the courts of first instance and second instance accepted the plaintiff’s claim.

​At the Supreme Court, we strongly argued that the lower court’s judgment was contrary to the texts of the relevant rehabilitation plan and the principle that where several persons have an obligation to be fulfilled by all of them, when rehabilitation proceedings are commenced against all or part of them, the creditor may exercise its rights as rehabilitation creditor in each rehabilitation proceeding with regard to the entire amount of claim held at the time of commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings. On the basis of the principle above, the Supreme Court reversed the conclusion of the lower court, and ruled that the defendant may exercise its rights based on the indemnity debt constituted at the time of commencing the initial rehabilitation proceeding without being affected by partial repayment by the principal debtor after the rehabilitation process commenced, and the amount of the indemnity debt should be a basis of the plaintiff's cash repayment amount and the equity conversion amount.

​3. Significance of the judgement

​The judgment is significant in that it confirms the dominant principle that, according to Articles 126(1) and 126(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, even if a claim is partially extinguished after a rehabilitation proceeding commenced, a creditor may exercise its rights with regard to the entire amount of the claim held at the time when the rehabilitation proceeding commenced.

​□Attorneys in charge: Park Je-Hyeoung, Yi Eung-Kyo and Park Gyu-Hee