Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Avoidance, as a preferential act, of an assignment of claims to a security holder after suspension of payment, and the propriety of set-off using a pre-revival claim as the active claim
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 13, 2007, 2005Da71710 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득금반환
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the counterparty has not yet restored the value of performance owed upon the exercise of the right of avoidance, may set-off be effected by taking the claim to be revived as the active claim?
Holding
The counterparty's claim revives only after the counterparty returns the performance received or restores its value. The Supreme Court held that, while the counterparty disputes its obligation to restore the value and fails to perform it, the claim does not revive, and accordingly set-off taking such claim as the active claim is improper for want of reciprocity. The Court also held that the act of assigning claims to a particular security holder for the purpose of repayment after the suspension of payment constitutes a preferential act subject to avoidance.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
부인권 행사에 기한 이행가액 상환청구에 대하여 상대방이 그 채무의 존재를 다투면서 이를 이행하지 않고 있는 경우 그 상대방의 채권은 아직 부활하지 않았으므로, 이와 같이 부활하지도 않은 채권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 그 상계적상을 흠결하여 부적법한 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the counterparty, in response to a claim for restitution of the value of performance based on the exercise of the right of avoidance, disputes the existence of that debt and does not perform it, the counterparty's claim has not yet revived; accordingly, a set-off using such a claim that has not revived as the active claim lacks the requirement of set-off and is unlawful.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part in which the plaintiff lost, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
상대방이 그 부인의 대상이 되는 행위에 기하여 받은 이행을 원상회복으로 반환하거나 그 가액을 상환한 후에야 비로소 상대방의 채권이 부활하는 것인데
Unofficial English translation
only after the counterparty restores to the original state the performance received by reason of the act subject to avoidance, or reimburses the value thereof, does the counterparty's claim revive
Factors
- 회사의 일반재산을 절대적으로 감소시키는 사해행위
- 회사채권자들 사이의 공평을 해하는 편파행위
- 정리절차 외에서 그 채권을 소멸하게 할 행위를 할 수 없다
- 그 가액을 상환한 후에야 비로소 상대방의 채권이 부활하는 것
Unofficial English translation
• A fraudulent act that absolutely decreases the general assets of the company
• A preferential act that impairs fairness among the company's creditors
• One may not perform an act to extinguish the claim outside the reorganization procedure
• Only after reimbursing the value thereof does the counterparty's claim revive
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the counterparty has restored the value of performance and the claim has revived, but the claim can no longer be filed in the reorganization procedure because the meeting of interested parties has closed, does the resulting loss become a common benefit claim, namely a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, that may serve as the active claim for set-off?
We will re-examine this reading if subsequent case law emerges on the time at which the counterparty's claim revives, or on the treatment of the revived claim, under Article 109(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with the independent reading by another AI series (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 5 (Factors) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “A fraudulent act that absolutely diminishes the company's general assets / A preferential act that prejudices equality among the company's creditors / An act extinguishing that claim outside the reorganization procedure may not be performed / The counterparty's claim revives only after the value has been restored” vs Independent “A preferential act that prejudices equality among the company's creditors / After suspension of payment or a petition for bankruptcy, composition, or commencement of the reorganization procedure / Exclusion of the amount of the claim equivalent to those distributions from the filing of the reorganization security right / After returning the performance received by restoration to the original state or restoring its value / Where the existence of the obligation is disputed and it is not performed”
The preferential act and the revival of the claim after restoration overlap, but instead of the primary reading's diminution of general assets and the restriction on exercising rights outside the procedure, the independent reading cites the timing of the suspension of payment and the like, exclusion from filing, and non-performance, and accordingly overlap across the full set of elements is lacking.
부인권 행사에 기한 이행가액 상환청구에 대하여 상대방이 그 채무의 존재를 다투면서 이를 이행하지 않고 있는 경우 그 상대방의 채권은 아직 부활하지 않았으므로, 이와 같이 부활하지도 않은 채권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 그 상계적상을 흠결하여 부적법한 것이다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the counterparty has restored the value of performance and the claim has revived, but the claim can no longer be filed in the reorganization procedure because the meeting of interested parties has closed, does the resulting loss become a common benefit claim, namely a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, that may serve as the active claim for set-off?” vs Independent “Where the counterparty against whom the right of avoidance is exercised returns or restores only part of the performance received, does the claim revive to a corresponding extent?”
The primary reading asks whether the loss of the claim, which can no longer be filed after restoration, may be set off as a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, while the independent reading asks whether the claim partially revives upon partial return.
부인권 행사에 기한 이행가액 상환청구에 대하여 상대방이 그 채무의 존재를 다투면서 이를 이행하지 않고 있는 경우 그 상대방의 채권은 아직 부활하지 않았으므로, 이와 같이 부활하지도 않은 채권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 그 상계적상을 흠결하여 부적법한 것이다.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 reorganization company's act of assigning its accounts receivable to the defendant, a security holder, after the suspension of payment was subject to avoidance, recognized an obligation to restore the value of the assigned accounts receivable, and ordered that the distributions received in the distribution procedure after the commencement decision also be returned as unjust enrichment; it rejected the defendant's set-off defense based on discharge arising from exclusion from the filing of the reorganization security right. It found, however, that because the defendant could no longer file its revived claim in the reorganization procedure after the meeting of interested parties had closed, as a result of the exercise of the right of avoidance, the reorganization company bore a common benefit claim in the form of an obligation to make restitution of unjust enrichment, and it granted in part the set-off defense, limited to the amount of that claim that had become due, dismissing the plaintiff's claim in that part.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's final appeal as to the parts concerning whether the act was subject to avoidance, return of the distributions, and rejection of the set-off based on discharge. However, finding it clear from the record that the defendant disputed the existence of its obligation to restore the value of performance and failed to perform it, so that the claim had not yet revived, the Court held that set-off taking such claim as the active claim was improper, and reversed and remanded the part of the judgment below adverse to the plaintiff, in which the set-off defense had been granted in part.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where set-off is asserted after the counterparty has already returned the performance received under the act subject to avoidance, or has restored its value, and the claim has revived
- Where the assignment of the claim took place before the suspension of payment or before the filing of a petition for commencement of the reorganization procedure, or was not for the purpose of repaying an existing obligation, and therefore is not assessed as a preferential act
- Where the discharge of the claim equivalent to the distributions arose for a reason other than the security holder's own exclusion from filing
Record verification notes
Before rejecting set-off that takes the revived claim as the active claim, first confirm whether the circumstance that the counterparty disputes its obligation to restore the value and fails to perform it is clear from the record, and whether any restoration, even in part, has been made.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 정리회사가 지급의 정지 또는 파산, 화의개시 또는 정리절차개시의 신청이 있은 후에 특정 담보권자에게 그 채무의 변제를 위하여 회사의 채권을 양도하는 행위가 구 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제2호에 의한 부인의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극) [2] 회사정리절차 개시결정에 의하여 중지된 배당절차에 참가하여 배당금을 수령한 정리담보권자가 그 배당금 상당의 채권액을 정리담보권 신고에서 제외하여 그에 상응하는 정리회사의 채무가 면책된 사안에서, 위 배당이 정리계획인가결정에 의하여 무효가 되었다고 하더라도 이로써 정리회사가 법률상 원인 없이 위 면책된 채무액 상당의 이익을 얻었다고 할 수 없다고 본 사례 [3] 구 회사정리법상 부인권 행사로 상대방의 채권이 부활하는 시기 및 부인권 행사에 기한 이행가액 상환 전에 그 채권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계의 적부(부적법)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an act whereby the reorganization company, after there has been a suspension of payment or a filing for bankruptcy, commencement of composition, or commencement of the reorganization procedure, assigns a claim of the company to a specific security interest holder for the purpose of discharging the debt is subject to avoidance under Article 78(1)2 of the former Corporate Reorganization Act (affirmative) [2] A case in which a reorganization security right holder who had participated in the distribution procedure stayed by the commencement decision of the reorganization procedure and received distribution proceeds excluded the amount of claim corresponding to such distribution proceeds from the filing of the reorganization security right, whereby the corresponding debt of the reorganization company was discharged; where the court held that, even if the above distribution became invalid by reason of the approval order of the reorganization plan, the reorganization company cannot be regarded as having thereby obtained a benefit corresponding to the above discharged amount of debt without legal cause [3] The time at which the counterparty's claim is revived by an exercise of the right of avoidance under the former Corporate Reorganization Act, and the propriety of set-off (unlawful) using such claim as the active claim before restitution of the value of performance based on the exercise of the right of avoidance
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제78조 제1항 제2호에 규정된 부인의 대상이 되는 ‘정리채권자 등을 해하는 행위’에는 총채권자의 공동담보가 되는 회사의 일반재산을 절대적으로 감소시키는 사해행위뿐만 아니라 회사채권자들 사이의 공평을 해하는 편파행위도 포함되는바, 회사정리절차에 있어 담보권자는 개별적으로 담보권실행행위를 할 수 없고 정리담보권자로서 정리절차 내에서의 권리행사가 인정될 뿐 정리절차 외에서 그 채권을 소멸하게 할 행위를 할 수 없다는 점에 비추어 보면, 회사가 지급의 정지 또는 파산, 화의개시 또는 정리절차개시의 신청이 있은 후에 특정 담보권자에게 그 채무의 변제를 위하여 회사의 채권을 양도하는 행위는 다른 회사채권자들과의 공평을 해하는 편파행위로서 구 회사정리법 제78조 제1항 제2호에 의한 부인의 대상이 된다. [2] 회사정리절차 개시결정에 의하여 중지된 배당절차에 참가하여 배당금을 수령한 정리담보권자가 그 배당금 상당의 채권액을 정리담보권 신고에서 제외하여 그에 상응하는 정리회사의 채무가 면책된 사안에서, 위 배당이 정리계획인가결정에 의하여 무효가 되었다고 하더라도 이로써 정리회사가 법률상 원인 없이 위 면책된 채무액 상당의 이익을 얻었다고 할 수 없다고 본 사례. [3] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제89조의 규정에 의하면, 부인권이 행사된 경우 상대방이 그 부인의 대상이 되는 행위에 기하여 받은 이행을 원상회복으로 반환하거나 그 가액을 상환한 후에야 비로소 상대방의 채권이 부활하는 것인데, 부인권 행사에 기한 이행가액 상환청구에 대하여 상대방이 그 채무의 존재를 다투면서 이를 이행하지 않고 있는 경우 그 상대방의 채권은 아직 부활하지 않았으므로, 이와 같이 부활하지도 않은 채권을 자동채권으로 하는 상계는 그 상계적상을 흠결하여 부적법한 것이다.
Order
원심판결 중 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다. 피고의 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part in which the plaintiff lost, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's final 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) 제67조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제58조 참조), 제78조 제1항 제2호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제2호 참조), 제112조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제131조 참조), 제124조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제141조 참조) [2] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제67조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제58조 제1항 참조), 제126조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제149조 참조), 제241조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제251조 참조), 제246조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제256조 제1항 참조), 민법 제741조 [3] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제89조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제109조 제1항 참조), 제208조 제6호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제6호 참조), 민법 제492조
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