Whether a pledgee's recovery of a claim by disposing of securities is subject to avoidance under the Corporate Reorganization Act, and a claim for payment of value

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16

In a comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent).

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The court below held that the defendant's act of disposing of the equity securities after the company's suspension of payments prior to reorganization and applying them toward part of the claim was an act done with knowledge that it would prejudice reorganization claimants, within the meaning of Article 78, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2 of the Corporate Reorganization Act, and was therefore subject to avoidance, and that because the equity securities could not be restored to their original state, the defendant was obliged to pay their value. It further held that the plaintiff's obligation to provide a benefit equivalent to restoration of the security interest and the defendant's obligation to pay damages in the value were not obligations in a relationship of concurrent performance, and that the defendant could recover the security interest only through a supplementary filing for a reorganization security right and an amendment of the reorganization plan.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court agreed with the court below's determination regarding subject-matter eligibility for avoidance and the claim for payment of value. It pointed out, however, that under Article 127, paragraph (3) of the Corporate Reorganization Act, a supplementary filing may not be made after the meeting of interested parties for deliberation on the proposed reorganization plan has concluded, and that the court below's statement to the effect that a supplementary filing was available was inappropriate. It took the view that, in this case, the defendant could exercise the claim for unjust enrichment, a common benefit claim under Article 208, subparagraph 6, on the same terms as those on which it would have been recognized under the reorganization plan, and, holding that this error had no effect on the outcome of the judgment, dismissed the final appeal.

Distinguishing conditions

• A case in which the disposition of collateral took place before the suspension of payments and there are no circumstances warranting treating it as an act done with knowledge that it would prejudice reorganization claimants
• A case in which the payment was not enforcement of a pledge or other security interest but payment under an ordinary transaction unrelated to the security interest
• A case in which the original article itself, in place of the disposed securities, can be restored to the assets of the reorganized company

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same conclusion, first confirm whether the disposition of the collateral occurred after the suspension of payments, whether the disposing party knew at the time of disposal that it would prejudice reorganization claimants, and whether the means by which the opposing party may exercise its rights differs depending on whether the meeting of interested parties has concluded.

From the official text

Points at issue

[1] 질권자가 그 목적인 질권의 유가증권을 처분하여 채권을 회수한 행위가 회사정리법상 부인권 행사의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극) [2] 질권자가 그 질권의 목적인 유가증권을 처분하여 채권을 회수한 행위에 대하여 회사정리법상의 부인권이 행사된 경우, 그 유가증권의 원상회복에 갈음하여 그 가액의 상환을 청구할 수 있다고 한 원심판결을 수긍한 사례

Summary of the holding

[1] 회사정리절차에 있어서는 담보권자는 개별적으로 담보권실행행위를 할 수 없고(회사정리법 제67조), 정리담보권자로서 정리절차 내에서의 권리행사가 인정될 뿐, 정리절차 외에서 변제를 받는 등 채권소멸행위를 할 수 없으며(같은 법 제123조 제2항, 제112조), 또한 같은 법 제81조 후단이 부인하고자 하는 행위가 집행행위에 기한 것인 때에도 부인권을 행사할 수 있다고 규정한 취지에 비추어 보면, 질권의 목적물을 타에 처분하여 채권의 만족을 얻는 경우도 그 실질에 있어서 집행행위와 동일한 것으로 볼 수 있어 부인의 대상이 되는 행위에 포함된다. [2] 질권자가 그 질권의 목적인 유가증권을 처분하여 채권을 회수한 행위에 대하여 회사정리법상의 부인권이 행사된 경우, 그 유가증권의 원상회복에 갈음하여 그 가액의 상환을 청구할 수 있다고 한 원심판결을 수긍한 사례.

Order

상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.

Provisions referred to

[1] 회사정리법 제67조, 제78조 제1항 제2호, 제81조, 제112조, 제123조 제2항 [2] 회사정리법 제67조, 제81조, 제112조, 제123조 제2항