In recent years, there are a growing number of insolvency cases involved in the Korean legislation and jurisdiction. The insolvency laws have attracted various sectors of community. While our concern is in the shipping industry, we are glad to provide a general introduction of the insolvency laws of Korea.
Korean insolvency laws are largely similar to the Japanese law as well as the U.S Chapter 11 Reorganization (formerly Chapter 10). The relevant law in Korea is the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act ( “DRBA” ), which has been in effect since 1 April 2006, is comprised of the former (i) the Bankruptcy Act, (ii) the Corporate Reorganization Act, and (iii) the Composition Act. Following the consolidation of these three Acts into the DRBA, the process of “Reorganization” was renamed “Rehabilitation”
In general circumstances, after receiving an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, the Rehabilitation Court will render a General Prohibition Order enjoining all the Creditors from commencing or continuing actions or proceedings against the rehabilitation Debtor either upon application or by its inherent jurisdiction. For company which owns assets both in the nationwide and worldwide, the Court is also empowered to render a General Prohibition Order to simultaneously prohibit all such actions and proceedings.
As the DRBA is drafted to closely implement the Model Law and in line with the U.S and the U.K, many shipping companies have applied for and have been allowed to undergo rehabilitation proceedings in Korea. Based on the principle of reciprocity, several shipping companies undergoing rehabilitation in Korea have successfully applied to the Courts of the U.S, the U.K and other developed countries for protection against creditor proceedings.
Unlike the practices of the Courts in the U.S and the U.K where in principle only require the company which has the capacity to be rehabilitated to commence the rehabilitation; the Korean courts are not as strict as those courts. As all the applicants, especially shipping companies, are allowed to commence rehabilitation, it means that some debtors have very little possibility of meaningful rehabilitation. And after such shipping companies have obtained the permission for rehabilitation, this is a serious sacrifice for the Creditors of those companies. It is urged that the insolvency capacity of companies should be closely scrutinized by the Courts in order not to use the process of rehabilitation too often.
In a rehabilitation proceeding, firstly, a Creditor may exercise a set-off of his/her claim against the Debtor against a debt owed by the Debtor to the Creditor if the claim and counter claim have been matured and existed at the time of the commencement of the rehabilitation proceeding. Nevertheless, such set-off is not allowed where allowing so will do harm to the fairness or equality of creditors. Secondly, considering the contractual relationship between creditor and debtor, the rehabilitation trustee would require Court’s permission to terminate an executory contract or assume the executory contract without such permission. If a contract is terminated, the right for the other contractual party is to claim damages and then the claim becomes a rehabilitation claim. On the other hand, if the trustee assumes an executory contract which is later breached, the claim of the other party’s requiring performance will be treated as a common benefit claim as opposed to a rehabilitation claim. A common benefit claim could be against the debtor free of any restrictions despite rehabilitation proceedings. Thirdly, after commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, any “unfair acts” which would harm other creditors should be set aside and avoided. And if such acts occurred, it needs to be unwound and any properties exchanged must be returned. In addition, the claims arising from transactions occurring after commencing of rehabilitation proceedings are treated as “common benefit claims” , which could be enforced against the Debtor without any restrictions under the rehabilitation proceedings.
See attached file : ALCO20120046 Cross Border Insolvency Law & Practice in Korea.pdf
韩国跨境破产法律及实践
近几年，牵涉到韩国的法律及其管辖的破产案件越来越多，破产法律的适用范围广泛，航运业也在其中。在此，我们就韩国破产的相关法律及其实践提供一个简介，以便参考。
韩国破产法律与日本的相关法律以及美国破产法案第十一章 “重组” 类似。在韩国，该相关法律称为 “债务重组及破产法” (意译)（Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act），已于2006年4月1日生效，由过去的（1）破产法案；（2）公司重组法案；（3）和解协议法案，三个章节重新巩固并编纂为现在的 “债务重组及破产法案” ，并且将原来的 “重组” （ “Reorganization” ）重新命名为 “恢复” （ “Rehabilitation” ）。
通常情况下，在收到债务人的申请之后，法庭会根据申请的内容或者其司法管辖权给予所有的相关债权人一个 “一般禁止令” (General Prohibition Order)。法院亦有权终止对债务人进行单独的诉讼，并把对有关债务人的个别诉讼案件进行整合以集体诉讼形式继续进行。尤其对于那些在国内以及国外都拥有资产的公司，法律也会给予这样的 “一般禁止令” 来同时禁止在韩国内外进行的诉讼程序。
由于韩国的 “债务重组及破产法案” 是参照联合国贸易法委员会 “示范法” （Model Law）的模式以及美国和英国的相关法律法规进行编纂。因此，在 “互惠原则” 的基础之上，一些在韩国执行恢复程序的航运公司已经成功地在美国及英国等发达国家的法院获得了保护令，从而防止其他债权人进行单独的追偿诉讼。
相较英国和美国对申请债务重组程序公司的偿还资质的严格要求，韩国法院会相对宽松一些。目前，一些在韩国申请债务重组的航运公司，他们的申请都被接纳。但是，这并不意味着所有的债务人都有能力透过债务重组执行还款。所以，债权人可能蒙受不小的牺牲和损失。所以有团体建议法院对公司的破产偿还能力进行严格的审查从而防止恢复程序的滥用。
在恢复程序中应注意一些特点：首先，若债权人就对债务人的债务进行 “对冲” 时，首要条件是相关的债权债务请求必须在重组程序开始时已到期的情况下才可执行；然而，考虑到对所有债权人的公平性和平等性，这样的 “对冲” 可能会被禁止；其次，鉴于债权人和债务人之间的合同关系，重组程序的受托人会请求法院来认定终止某一合同的执行。如果合同被认为已终止，合同另一方提出的索赔请求会成为一个在债务重组下的债权；如果受托人认为该合同是仍可执行合同，但却在稍后的时间予以终止，合同另一方的继续履行合同的请求会被认为是与债务重组下相对的 “一般利益请求” ，该请求不受债务人和 “债务重组” 的任何限制；再次，在开始债务重组程序后，任何会伤害到其他债权人利益的 “有失公平行为” 都会被驳回或撤销。若一旦有这样的行为发生，都须予以恢复并退还已交付的财产。除此之外，在恢复程序开始后所进行的交易而提出的索赔请求都应被认作为 “共同利益请求” ，且其执行无须受到债务人的任何限制和阻碍。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
