[비즈한국] As E-Land Retail partially won a lawsuit to recover a purchase deposit from Jeongyookgak, the possibility of reclaiming the 3 billion won reservation deposit for the Jeongyookgak Gimpo factory has increased. While concerns were raised that the refund claim might be tied up as a rehabilitation claim after Jeongyookgak entered corporate rehabilitation proceedings, the court recognized it as a common benefit claim that can be repaid with priority, separate from the rehabilitation plan.
E-Land Retail in legal battle over factory purchase deposit refund
On July 23, the 41st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff in a purchase price refund lawsuit filed by E-Land Retail against Jeongyookgak. The court ordered, "Jeongyookgak shall pay E-Land Retail 3 billion won plus legal interest calculated at an annual rate of 6% from July 12, 2025." The court recognized the full principal of 3 billion won but decided to award only the 6% statutory interest instead of the 12% delay damages requested by E-Land Retail.
E-Land Retail filed the refund lawsuit against Jeongyookgak in October 2024. A purchase price refund lawsuit is a civil action in which a buyer demands the return of a deposit or installment payments already made when a sales contract is not fulfilled due to termination, nullification, or cancellation.
On July 12, 2024, E-Land Retail had signed a purchase reservation agreement to acquire the Gimpo factory and its site held by Jeongyookgak for approximately 33 billion won. Located in Gochon-eup, Gimpo-si, Gyeonggi-do, this smart factory has a total floor area of approximately 15,700㎡ (about 4,750 pyeong) and stands four stories high. Upon signing the agreement, E-Land Retail paid a 3 billion won reservation deposit and established a provisional registration for the claim of ownership transfer.
The exercise period for the reservation completion right was set for one year, with the provision that the contract would terminate if the right was not exercised within that period. The contract also specified that the deposit was not a cancellation penalty.
However, the actual factory acquisition did not proceed after E-Land Retail's internal investment committee rejected the deal. In August 2024, E-Land Retail sent a formal notice to Jeongyookgak stating they would not purchase the factory and demanded the return of the 3 billion won deposit. When Jeongyookgak refused to return the deposit, E-Land Retail filed the lawsuit in October of the same year.
The nature of this case changed when Jeongyookgak entered corporate rehabilitation proceedings during the trial. While the core issue at the time of the initial filing in October 2024 was whether the deposit should be refunded, the focus shifted to whether the claim should be classified as a rehabilitation claim or a common benefit claim after Jeongyookgak's rehabilitation proceedings began in July 2025.
If recognized as a rehabilitation claim, the debt would be repaid according to the rehabilitation plan alongside other creditors. In this scenario, the claim might be reduced or repaid in installments over a long period, making full recovery difficult. Conversely, common benefit claims are subject to repayment at any time, separate from the rehabilitation plan, making them relatively easier to recover.
Jeongyookgak argued that the purchase reservation ended when E-Land Retail expressed its intention not to purchase the factory in August 2024. Consequently, they contended that the refund claim was a rehabilitation claim that arose before the start of the rehabilitation proceedings.
In contrast, E-Land Retail maintained that the contract explicitly set July 12, 2025, as the deadline for exercising the reservation completion right, and therefore that date should be considered the termination date. Since Jeongyookgak’s rehabilitation proceedings began on July 4, prior to that date, they argued the refund claim was a common benefit claim that arose after the start of the rehabilitation process.
Court recognizes ‘common benefit claim’; will it become a variable in Jeongyookgak’s rehabilitation?
The court sided with E-Land Retail. The court determined that even if E-Land Retail had notified Jeongyookgak in advance that it would not purchase the factory, the purchase reservation did not terminate at that moment. This is because the contract stipulated that the reservation would only terminate after the expiration of the set period without a written notification of the final purchase intention (notice of exercise of reservation completion right).
The court stated, "The rehabilitation proceedings were decided on July 4, 2025, and the purchase reservation terminated only after the deadline for exercising the reservation completion right passed on July 12, 2025." The court judged that "the right to claim a refund of the deposit is a right to claim the return of unjust enrichment that arose after the start of the rehabilitation proceedings, and thus it qualifies as a common benefit claim."
This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on Jeongyookgak's rehabilitation process. As the court recognized the 3 billion won plus interest as a common benefit claim, Jeongyookgak now faces the burden of having to repay it separately from the rehabilitation plan. This adds to the financial strain on the company while its rehabilitation is already being prolonged. Jeongyookgak had applied for an extension of the deadline to submit its rehabilitation plan on July 20, and the court subsequently extended the deadline to August 21.
The court also granted provisional execution for the order to pay the 3 billion won and legal interest. As a result, E-Land Retail can attempt compulsory execution on Jeongyookgak’s property, such as bank deposits or accounts receivable, even before the judgment becomes final. Previously, E-Land Retail had placed a provisional attachment on the Jeongyookgak Gimpo factory for the claimed 3 billion won to secure its claim.
An E-Land Retail official stated, "The purchase of the Gimpo factory at the time was part of securing logistics infrastructure necessary for our operations." They added, "We are reviewing relevant procedures based on the court's ruling. Regarding the recovery of the claim, we are considering necessary measures in accordance with company policy."