Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Whether Set-off May Be Allowed Based on the Anticipatory Right to Reimbursement of a Substitute Surety, and Whether a Joint Suretyship Act of a Reorganization Company After Refinancing Is Subject to Avoidance as a Gratuitous Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 13, 2001, 2001Da55222 (judgment)
Case name: 정리채권확정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a substitute surety's anticipatory right to reimbursement be used as an automatic claim for set-off, and, where the maturity has been extended by refinancing, is the joint suretyship act of a reorganization company subject to the right of avoidance as a gratuitous act?
Holding
Because the anticipatory right to reimbursement carries the right to demand discharge as a defense, set-off using it as an automatic claim is not permitted. Refinancing is, absent special circumstances, merely an extension of the maturity of the existing debt; accordingly, if the time of the initial loan transaction was earlier than six months before the date of suspension of payment, the joint suretyship act cannot become subject to the right of avoidance as a gratuitous act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특히 수탁보증인이 주채무자에 대하여 가지는 민법 제442조의 사전구상권에는 민법 제443조 소정의 이른바 면책청구권이 항변권으로 부착되어 있는 만큼 이를 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 허용될 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
In particular, since the preliminary right to reimbursement under Article 442 of the Civil Act that the commissioned guarantor has against the principal debtor is accompanied, as a defense, by the so-called claim for exoneration under Article 443 of the Civil Act, set-off with it as the active claim cannot be permissible.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Read from the decision
정리회사의 연대보증행위는 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제4호에 규정된 무상행위 부인권의 대상이 될 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The suretyship obligation of the company in reorganization cannot be subject to the right of avoidance of a gratuitous act as provided in Article 78 (1), subparagraph 4 of the Corporate Reorganization Act.
Factors
- 항변권이 붙어 있는 채권을 자동채권으로 하여
- 민법 제443조 소정의 이른바 면책청구권이 항변권으로 부착되어 있는 만큼
- 새로운 자금의 실질적 수수 없이 문서상으로만 신규대출의 형식을 구비하여
- 기존채무가 동일성을 유지한 채 존속하는 것이므로
- 최초의 대출거래시기가 정리회사의 지급정지일부터 6월 전 이전에 해당하게 된 경우
Unofficial English translation
• taking a claim accompanied by a defense as the active claim for set-off,
• since the so-called claim for exoneration under Article 443 of the Civil Act is attached thereto as a defense,
• without any actual receipt of new funds, merely satisfying in documentation the form of a new loan,
• since the pre-existing debt continues to exist while retaining its identity,
• where the time of the initial loan transaction falls before the date six months prior to the date of suspension of payment by the company in reorganization
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1982. 5. 25. 선고 81다595 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 81Da595 decided May 25, 1982
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1969. 10. 28. 선고 69다1084 판결(공보불게재), 대법원 1982. 5. 25. 선고 81다595 판결(공1982, 603) / [2] 대법원 1994. 6. 10. 선고 94다3445 판결(공1994하, 1931), 대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 97다16077 판결(공1998상, 861), 대법원 2001. 5. 29. 선고 2001다16814 판결(공보불게재), 대법원 2001. 7. 13. 선고 2001다5388 판결(공보불게재)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In what circumstances are special circumstances recognized that would require refinancing to be regarded not as an extension of the maturity of the existing debt but as a new loan?
If decisions rendered after the provisions on avoidance of gratuitous acts in the Corporate Reorganization Act were replaced by the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act take a different view of refinancing and of the point in time for avoidance, this reading needs to be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, all 8 axes matched.
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, since the pre-emptive right to reimbursement of the substitute surety carried the defense of the right to demand discharge, set-off was not permitted, and since the creditors had already exercised their rights against the bankruptcy estate, the pre-emptive right to reimbursement could not be exercised either, by virtue of the proviso to Article 21 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act; on those grounds it rejected the set-off defense raised by the reorganization company, a joint surety. It also adopted the judgment of the first instance court, holding that the point in time for determining whether an act constituted a gratuitous act was not the date of the last refinancing transaction but the date of the first bill-discounting transaction, and rejected the assertion of the right of avoidance in respect of obligations for which that date fell earlier than six months before the suspension of payment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court considered that both determinations were proper as they followed the legal principle of its earlier decisions. The grounds for final appeal asserting that, where the anticipatory right to reimbursement is used as an automatic claim, the right to demand discharge may not be exercised, or that set-off must exceptionally be permitted where the principal debtor becomes bankrupt, were not accepted as independent theories of law, and the final appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where new funds were actually advanced and there are special circumstances under which the refinancing is to be evaluated as a new loan going beyond a formal extension of maturity
- Where the initial loan transaction and the joint suretyship itself took place within six months before the date of suspension of payment
- Where the right to reimbursement is not a pre-emptive right to reimbursement but a subsequent right to reimbursement arising after the surety has actually performed, so that no defense of the right to demand discharge is attached to it
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one should first check whether there are circumstances arising from an actual transfer of funds or a change in the content of the obligation in the course of refinancing that would break the identity of the existing debt, and whether a defense is in fact attached to the automatic claim.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수탁보증인의 주채무자에 대한 사전구상권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계가 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 최초의 어음할인 및 이에 관한 정리회사의 연대보증행위가 정리회사의 지급정지일로부터 6월 전 이전에 있은 후 대환에 의하여 변제기가 연장되어 온 경우, 정리회사의 연대보증행위가 회사정리법 제78조 소정의 '무상행위 부인권'의 대상이 될 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether set-off with the commissioned guarantor's preliminary right to reimbursement against the principal debtor as the active claim is permissible (negative) [2] Where the initial discount of negotiable instruments and the suretyship obligation of the company in reorganization in connection therewith occurred before the date six months prior to the date of suspension of payment by the company in reorganization, and the due date has since been extended by refinancing, whether the suretyship obligation of the company in reorganization may be subject to the 'right of avoidance of a gratuitous act' as provided in Article 78 of the Corporate Reorganization Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 항변권이 붙어 있는 채권을 자동채권으로 하여 다른 채무(수동채권)와의 상계를 허용한다면 상계자 일방의 의사표시에 의하여 상대방의 항변권 행사의 기회를 상실시키는 결과가 되므로 그러한 상계는 허용될 수 없고, 특히 수탁보증인이 주채무자에 대하여 가지는 민법 제442조의 사전구상권에는 민법 제443조 소정의 이른바 면책청구권이 항변권으로 부착되어 있는 만큼 이를 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 허용될 수 없다. [2] 금융기관과 채무자가 새로운 자금의 실질적 수수 없이 문서상으로만 신규대출의 형식을 구비하여 기존 채무를 변제한 것으로 처리하는 이른바 대환은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 실질적으로는 기존 채무의 변제기의 연장에 불과하고 이렇게 대환이 이루어진 경우에는 기존채무가 동일성을 유지한 채 존속하는 것이므로, 최초의 어음할인과 이에 관한 정리회사의 연대보증 등 대출거래가 있은 후 이와 같은 대환에 의하여 변제기가 연장되어 옴에 따라 최초의 대출거래시기가 정리회사의 지급정지일부터 6월 전 이전에 해당하게 된 경우에는 정리회사의 연대보증행위는 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제4호에 규정된 무상행위 부인권의 대상이 될 수 없다.
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] 민법 제442조, 제443조, 제492조 [2] 민법 제105조, 제500조, 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제4호
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