Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Establishment of Intentional Avoidance of Preferential Repayment and the Subjective Requirement of Intent to Hinder Creditors
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, June 15, 2006, 2004Da46519 (judgment)
Case name: 부인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a preferential act such as repayment to a specific creditor also subject to intentional avoidance under Article 78 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Reorganization Act, and if so, what subjective recognition must the company have?
Holding
Preferential acts are also included within the scope of intentional avoidance. As a subjective requirement, it is necessary that the company recognize that it is making repayment to a specific creditor in order to evade the principle of equality among creditors to be applied in the corporate reorganization proceedings, but the Supreme Court held that an affirmative intention or desire to inflict harm upon the reorganization claimants is not required.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특정채권자에게 변제하는 편파행위를 고의부인의 대상으로 할 경우에는, 구 회사정리법이 정한 부인대상행위 유형화의 취지를 몰각시키는 것을 방지하고 거래 안전과의 균형을 도모하기 위해 회사정리절차가 개시되는 경우에 적용되는 채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 특정채권자에게 변제한다는 인식이 필요하다고 할 것이지만, 더 나아가 정리채권자들에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사 내지 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a preferential act, such as payment to a specific creditor, is made the subject of intentional avoidance, although it is necessary to have the recognition that payment is being made to a specific creditor in order to evade the principle of equality among creditors that applies where corporate reorganization proceedings are commenced, in order to prevent the negation of the intent of the categorization of acts subject to avoidance prescribed by the former Corporate Reorganization Act and to strike a balance with the security of transactions, it is not necessary to go so far as requiring an intent or desire to actively harm the reorganization creditors.
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
채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 특정채권자에게 변제한다는 인식이 필요하다고 할 것이지만
Unofficial English translation
although it is necessary to have the recognition that payment is being made to a specific creditor in order to evade the principle of equality among creditors
Factors
- 특정한 채권자에 대한 변제와 같이 다른 정리채권자들과의 공평에 반하는 이른바 편파행위도 포함되나
- 채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 특정채권자에게 변제한다는 인식이 필요하다
- 정리채권자들에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사 내지 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다
- 채무를 일반적, 계속적으로 변제할 수 없는 지급정지상태에 있었음에도
- 대표이사에 대한 처벌불원의사표시를 받기 위하여 특정 채권자에 대한 채무를 변제한 사안
Unofficial English translation
• so-called preferential acts, such as payment to a specific creditor, which are contrary to fairness among the other reorganization creditors, are also included
• it is necessary to have the recognition that payment is being made to a specific creditor in order to evade the principle of equality among creditors
• there is no need to require an intent or desire to actively harm the reorganization creditors
• despite being in a state of suspension of payment in which it was unable to discharge its debts generally and continuously
• a case where, in order to obtain an expression of an unwillingness to have the representative director punished, the company paid a debt owed to a specific creditor
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2003다271 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2003Da271 decided November 10, 2005
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2003다271 판결(공2005하, 1925)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In the case of an ordinary repayment where there are no special circumstances, such as circumstances before and after the cessation of payments or a representative director's expression of unwillingness to seek punishment, to what extent can the recognition of an intent to evade the principle of equality among creditors be inferred?
If a Supreme Court decision takes a different view of the subjective requirements for preferential acts with respect to intentional avoidance under Article 100 (1) 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparing an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “In the case of an ordinary repayment where there are no special circumstances, such as circumstances before and after the cessation of payments or a representative director's expression of unwillingness to seek punishment, to what extent can the recognition of an intent to evade the principle of equality among creditors be inferred?” vs Independent “Where repayment to a specific creditor is also necessary for the continued operation of the company's business, how is the recognition that it is evading the principle of equality among creditors to be determined?”
The initial reading asks about the limits of inferring the recognition of evasion in ordinary repayments where there are no special circumstances, while the independent reading asks about the method of determining that recognition in repayments where there is also a need for the continuation of business.
특정채권자에게 변제하는 편파행위를 고의부인의 대상으로 할 경우에는, 구 회사정리법이 정한 부인대상행위 유형화의 취지를 몰각시키는 것을 방지하고 거래 안전과의 균형을 도모하기 위해 회사정리절차가 개시되는 경우에 적용되는 채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 특정채권자에게 변제한다는 인식이 필요하다고 할 것이지만, 더 나아가 정리채권자들에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사 내지 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다.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 stated that intent to hinder creditors is recognized where the company in reorganization merely recognizes that it is causing unfairness among the reorganization claimants, and found intent to hinder creditors as to all of the five repayments made to the defendant for the purpose of obtaining the representative director's expression of unwillingness to seek punishment while the company was in a state of cessation of payments. It also found it difficult to conclude that the company in reorganization had generally been repaying principal and interest on its debts to other creditor financial institutions besides the defendant, and held that the exercise of the right of avoidance was neither a violation nor an abuse of the principle of good faith.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, while pointing out that the court below's statement was expressed in excessively simple terms, accepted its conclusion, holding that in light of all the circumstances it could readily be inferred that the repayment was made in order to evade the principle of equality among creditors. Rejecting the grounds for final appeal that an affirmative intention to inflict harm is required, and finding that the court below's determination, premised on the burden of proof of the fact that the repayment was a preferential repayment resting on the plaintiff, the administrator, as well as its finding denying an abuse of the right of avoidance, were both proper, the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where, at the time of the repayment, the company had not reached a state of cessation of payments and no circumstances of financial deterioration warranting the anticipation of the commencement of reorganization proceedings had emerged
- Where, even after the cessation of payments, the company had generally been repaying its debts to other creditors, making it difficult to regard the repayment to the specific creditor as preferential
- Where the extinguishment of the debt was processed not through an act of the company but on the creditor's side, such as the creditor's rediscounting of secured bills or set-off
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it is necessary to check whether circumstances such as the point in time of the cessation of payments, the motive for the repayment, and the state of repayments to other creditors, from which it can be inferred that the repayment was made in the recognition of an intent to evade the principle of equality among creditors, have been proved by the administrator.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 부인의 대상으로 되는 행위인 ‘회사가 정리채권자 등을 해할 것을 알고 한 행위’에 이른바 편파행위도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 편파행위에 대한 고의부인이 인정되기 위하여 요구되는 주관적 요건의 내용 [2] 회사가 정리채권자들에 대한 채무를 일반적, 계속적으로 변제할 수 없는 지급정지상태에 있었음에도 부정수표단속법 위반죄로 고발된 대표이사에 대한 처벌불원의사표시를 받기 위하여 특정 채권자에 대한 채무를 변제한 사안에서, 그 변제에 대한 회사의 사해의사를 추인할 수 있다고 한 원심의 판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether so-called preferential acts, such as payment to a specific creditor in a manner contrary to fairness among the other reorganization creditors, are also included among the acts subject to avoidance, namely "an act that the company knew would harm reorganization creditors, etc.," as provided in subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1) of Article 78 of the former Corporate Reorganization Act (affirmative), and the content of the subjective requirement demanded for intentional avoidance of a preferential act to be recognized [2] In a case where, despite being in a state of suspension of payment in which it was unable to discharge its debts to the reorganization creditors generally and continuously, the company paid a debt owed to a specific creditor in order to obtain an expression of an unwillingness to have the representative director, who had been criminally reported for violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, punished, a case approving the determination of the court below that the company's intent to defraud creditors as to such payment could be inferred
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제78조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 부인의 대상으로 되는 행위인 ‘회사가 정리채권자 등을 해할 것을 알고 한 행위’에는 총채권자의 공동담보가 되는 회사의 일반재산을 절대적으로 감소시키는 이른바 사해행위뿐만 아니라, 특정한 채권자에 대한 변제와 같이 다른 정리채권자들과의 공평에 반하는 이른바 편파행위도 포함되나, 위와 같은 고의부인이 인정되기 위해서는 주관적 요건으로서 회사가 ‘정리채권자들을 해함을 알 것’을 필요로 하는데, 특정채권자에게 변제하는 편파행위를 고의부인의 대상으로 할 경우에는, 구 회사정리법이 정한 부인대상행위 유형화의 취지를 몰각시키는 것을 방지하고 거래 안전과의 균형을 도모하기 위해 회사정리절차가 개시되는 경우에 적용되는 채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 특정채권자에게 변제한다는 인식이 필요하다고 할 것이지만, 더 나아가 정리채권자들에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사 내지 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다. [2] 회사가 정리채권자들에 대한 채무를 일반적, 계속적으로 변제할 수 없는 지급정지상태에 있었음에도 부정수표단속법 위반죄로 고발된 대표이사에 대한 처벌불원의사표시를 받기 위하여 특정 채권자에 대한 채무를 변제한 사안에서, 그 변제에 대한 회사의 사해의사를 추인할 수 있다고 한 원심의 판단을 수긍한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제78조 제1항 제1호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제1호 참조) [2] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제78조 제1항 제1호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제1호 참조)
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