Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Meaning of claims intentionally omitted from the schedule of creditors under the former Bankruptcy Act, and whether negligently omitted claims are non-dischargeable
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 11, 2007, 2005Da76500 (judgment)
Case name: 대여금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a bankrupt, through negligence, was unaware of the existence of a claim and therefore did not enter it in the schedule of creditors, does that claim fall under the non-dischargeable claims of Article 349, subparagraph 6 of the former Bankruptcy Act?
Holding
A claim intentionally omitted from the schedule of creditors refers to a case in which the bankrupt, prior to the discharge order, knew of the existence of the claim yet did not enter it. The Supreme Court held that, without inquiring into the presence or absence of negligence, this provision does not apply where the bankrupt was unaware of the existence of the claim.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
파산자가 면책결정 이전에 채권의 존재 사실을 알면서도 이를 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 경우를 뜻하므로, 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 데에 과실이 있는지 여부를 불문하고 파산자가 채권의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 여기에 해당하지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
it refers to a case where the bankrupt, knowing of the existence of the claim prior to the discharge order, nevertheless failed to enter it in the list of creditors; therefore, regardless of whether there was negligence in failing to enter it in the list of creditors, where the bankrupt did not know of the existence of the claim, it cannot be regarded as falling under this provision.
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
채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 데에 과실이 있는지 여부를 불문하고 파산자가 채권의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 여기에 해당하지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
regardless of whether there was negligence in failing to enter it in the list of creditors, where the bankrupt did not know of the existence of the claim, it cannot be regarded as falling under this provision.
Factors
- 면책결정 이전에 채권의 존재 사실을 알면서도
- 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 데에 과실이 있는지 여부를 불문하고
- 파산자가 채권의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때
Unofficial English translation
• while knowing of the existence of the claim prior to the discharge order
• regardless of whether there was negligence in failing to enter it in the list of creditors
• when the bankrupt did not know of the existence of the claim
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
Apart from service of a copy of the complaint, by what circumstantial facts may it be found that the bankrupt knew of the existence of the claim, and who bears the burden of that proof?
If a different holding of the Supreme Court is rendered on the interpretation of Article 566, subparagraph 7 of the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial 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 (Seoul High Court, Case 2005Na32106) held that the loan claim in this case did not fall under the non-dischargeable claims of Article 349, subparagraph 6 of the former Bankruptcy Act. The specific content of the reasoning of the court below is confirmed only to the extent that, according to the Supreme Court's reasoning, there was some inappropriate reasoning.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, citing the fact that the defendants, believing that the loan claim had been fully satisfied through distribution in a voluntary auction, deleted it from the schedule of creditors, and the fact that, there being no grounds for denial of discharge, they had no reason to omit it while knowing of it, took the view that there may have been negligence but not bad faith; and it held that even though a copy of the complaint had been served before the discharge order, the matter could not be viewed differently, and thus sustained the conclusion of the court below as justifiable.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where circumstances are found showing that the bankrupt, in fact knowing of the existence of the claim prior to the discharge order, nevertheless omitted it from the schedule of creditors
- Cases revealing a motive on the part of the bankrupt to omit the claim while knowing of it, such as an attempt to conceal grounds for denial of discharge
- Cases in which the wording and structure of Article 566, subparagraph 7 of the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act admit of an interpretation differing from the former Act
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check in the Records the circumstances under which the bankrupt deliberately deleted the claim in question as distinct from other claims, or left it in place, and whether the bankrupt became aware, prior to the discharge order, of the creditor's demands or of the fact that an action had been filed.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 파산법 제349조 제6호에서 정한 ‘파산자가 악의로 채권자명부에 기재하지 아니한 청구권’의 의미 및 파산자가 과실로 그 존재를 알지 못하여 기재하지 아니한 채권이 위 청구권에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of 'a claim that the bankrupt knowingly failed to enter in the list of creditors' as provided in subparagraph 6 of Article 349 of the former Bankruptcy Act, and whether a claim that was not entered due to the bankrupt's negligence in failing to know of its existence falls under such claim (negative)
Summary of the holding
구 파산법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제349조 제6호에서 정한 ‘파산자가 악의로 채권자명부에 기재하지 아니한 청구권’은 파산자가 면책결정 이전에 채권의 존재 사실을 알면서도 이를 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 경우를 뜻하므로, 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 데에 과실이 있는지 여부를 불문하고 파산자가 채권의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 여기에 해당하지 아니한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
구 파산법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제349조 제6호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호 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