Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Meaning of an act falling within the obligations of a bankrupt, and avoidance of provision of collateral under an additional-collateral agreement and the prohibition of set-off
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2002, 2001Da55116 (judgment)
Case name: 부인권행사
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does provision of collateral under an agreement to provide collateral or additional collateral upon claim when necessary for preservation of the claim constitute an act falling within the obligations of a bankrupt under Article 64, subparagraph 4 of the former Bankruptcy Act?
Holding
That an act falls within the obligations of the bankrupt means a concrete obligation that the creditor may claim performance of; accordingly, provision of collateral under an agreement setting out only a general and abstract obligation to provide collateral is subject to avoidance. Once the provision of collateral is avoided, set-off of a debt incurred as part of that procedure, taking it as the passive claim, is likewise not permitted.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구체적 의무를 부담하여 채권자가 그 구체적 의무의 이행을 청구할 권리를 가지는 경우를 의미한다고 해석함이 상당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is reasonable to interpret this as meaning a case in which a specific obligation is assumed and the creditor has the right to claim performance of that specific obligation.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
추상적 의무로는 부족하고 구체적 의무를 부담하여 채권자가 그 구체적 의무의 이행을 청구할 권리를 가지는 경우를 의미한다고 해석함이 상당하다
Unofficial English translation
an abstract obligation is not sufficient, and it is reasonable to interpret this as meaning a case in which a specific obligation is assumed and the creditor has the right to claim performance of that specific obligation
Factors
- 구체적 의무를 부담하여 채권자가 그 구체적 의무의 이행을 청구할 권리를 가지는 경우
- 지급정지나 파산신청이 있은 후 또는 그 전 30일 내에 한 담보의 제공 또는 채무소멸에 관한 행위
- 채권보전상 필요하다고 인정되는 때에는 청구에 의하여 곧 채권자가 승인하는 담보나 추가담보를 제공하겠으며
- 파산채권자의 파산자에 대한 채무가 그 담보제공을 위한 절차의 일환으로 이루어진 것이라 하더라도
Unofficial English translation
• a case in which a specific obligation is assumed and the creditor has the right to claim performance of that specific obligation
• provision of security or an act concerning the extinguishment of obligations made after the suspension of payment or the filing of a bankruptcy petition, or within 30 days prior thereto
• whenever it is deemed necessary for the preservation of claims, upon demand it will promptly provide security or additional security approved by the creditor, and
• even if the bankruptcy claimant's obligation to the bankrupt was incurred as part of the procedure for that provision of security
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 12. 8. 선고 2000다26067 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26067 decided December 8, 2000
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2000. 12. 8. 선고 2000다26067 판결(공2001상, 257)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the agreement specifically identifies the subject matter of the collateral and the time of provision, could the provision of collateral be regarded as a concrete obligation that the creditor may sue upon and thus fall outside the scope of avoidance?
This reading will be checked again if a new decision is handed down concerning the interpretation of the avoidance-of-preferential-transactions provision or the prohibition-of-set-off provision of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
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 lineage of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, while the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Since the original text sets out the general standard of a concrete obligation and a right to claim performance while applying it to the actual agreement to provide collateral and the assumption of the debt, the primary reading may place weight on Elements stated and the independent reading on Existing test applied.
담보제공이 파산자의 의무에 속하는 것으로 볼 수 없어 부인되는 이상Raw 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 (Daegu High Court Decision 2000Na5832 decided July 18, 2001), as appears from its reasoning, held in substance that the pledge created by the defendant on July 25, 1998 was not provision of collateral falling within the obligations of the bankrupt and was therefore subject to avoidance, and that set-off, taking as the passive claim the obligation to return the deposited money that the defendant assumed with knowledge of the suspension of payments, was likewise not permitted. The court below's specific process of reasoning is not further ascertainable from its reasoning.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found that the collateral provision of the certificate of loan under a line-of-credit agreement imposed only a general and abstract obligation, that the creditor could not claim performance thereof but could only recover the claim by loss of the benefit of the term, and held that the court below, which decided to the same effect, had no misapprehension of legal principles regarding the right of avoidance and the prohibition of set-off, and dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the agreement specifies the subject matter of the collateral and the time of provision and thus sets out a concrete obligation to provide collateral upon which the creditor may claim performance
- Where the act of providing collateral was carried out outside the period of after the suspension of payments or the bankruptcy petition, or within 30 days before that
- Where the creditor did not know, at the time of the act, of the suspension of payments or the bankruptcy petition, or of facts prejudicial to bankruptcy creditors
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether the agreement to provide collateral confers upon the creditor a concrete right to claim performance, and whether the cause of the debt taken as the passive claim had already arisen before knowledge of the suspension of payments or the bankruptcy petition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 파산법 제64조 제4호 소정의 ‘파산자의 의무에 속한다’의 의미 [2] 파산 전 회사가 자금을 융통하면서 ‘채권보전상 필요하다고 인정되는 때에는 청구에 의하여 곧 채권자가 승인하는 담보나 추가담보를 제공하겠으며, 보증인을 추가로 세우겠음. 일정한 예치금을 담보로 제공하겠음’이라고 약정하였더라도 이에 기한 담보제공은 구 파산법 제64조 제4호 소정의 ‘파산자의 의무에 속하는 행위’라고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례 [3] 담보제공이 파산자의 의무에 속하는 것으로 볼 수 없어 부인되는 이상, 파산채권자의 파산자에 대한 채무가 그 담보제공을 위한 절차의 일환으로 이루어진 것이라 하더라도 그 채무의 부담은 구 파산법 제95조 제2호 단서 소정의 ‘파산채권자가 지급정지나 파산신청이 있었음을 알기 전에 생긴 원인에 기한 때’에 해당된다고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "belongs to the duties of the bankrupt" as used in Article 64, subparagraph 4 of the former Bankruptcy Act [2] A case holding that, even if the company, prior to bankruptcy, agreed when raising funds that "whenever it is deemed necessary for the preservation of claims, upon demand it will promptly provide security or additional security approved by the creditor, and will add additional sureties. It will provide a certain deposit as security," the provision of security based on such agreement cannot be regarded as an "act belonging to the duties of the bankrupt" as provided in Article 64, subparagraph 4 of the former Bankruptcy Act [3] A case holding that, inasmuch as the provision of security cannot be regarded as belonging to the duties of the bankrupt and is avoided, even if the bankruptcy claimant's obligation to the bankrupt was incurred as part of the procedure for that provision of security, the assumption of that obligation cannot be regarded as falling under "a case based on a cause that arose before the bankruptcy claimant became aware of the suspension of payment or the filing of a bankruptcy petition" as provided in the proviso to subparagraph 2 of Article 95 of the former Bankruptcy Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제64조 제4호는 부인할 수 있는 행위의 하나로서 ‘파산자가 지급정지나 파산신청이 있은 후 또는 그 전 30일 내에 한 담보의 제공 또는 채무소멸에 관한 행위로서 파산자의 의무에 속하지 아니하거나 그 방법 또는 시기가 파산자의 의무에 속하지 아니하는 것. 단, 채권자가 그 행위 당시에 지급정지나 파산신청이 있은 것 또는 파산채권자를 해하게 되는 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 예외로 한다.’고 규정하고 있는바, 여기에서 ‘파산자의 의무에 속한다’라고 함은 일반적·추상적 의무로는 부족하고 구체적 의무를 부담하여 채권자가 그 구체적 의무의 이행을 청구할 권리를 가지는 경우를 의미한다고 해석함이 상당하다. [2] 파산 전 회사가 자금을 융통하면서 ‘채권보전상 필요하다고 인정되는 때에는 청구에 의하여 곧 채권자가 승인하는 담보나 추가담보를 제공하겠으며, 보증인을 추가로 세우겠음. 일정한 예치금을 담보로 제공하겠음’이라고 약정하였더라도 이에 기한 담보제공은 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제64조 제4호 소정의 ‘파산자의 의무에 속하는 행위’라고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례. [3] 담보제공이 파산자의 의무에 속하는 것으로 볼 수 없어 부인되는 이상, 파산채권자의 파산자에 대한 채무가 그 담보제공을 위한 절차의 일환으로 이루어진 것이라 하더라도 그 채무의 부담은 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제95조 제2호 단서 소정의 ‘파산채권자가 지급정지나 파산신청이 있었음을 알기 전에 생긴 원인에 기한 때’에 해당된다고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제64조 제4호 [2] 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제64조 제4호 [3] 구 파산법(2000. 1. 12. 법률 제6111호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제95조 제2호
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger