Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Gratuitous nature of a joint guarantee given by a rehabilitation debtor, and whether the provision extending the avoidance period applies where the principal obligor is a specially related person
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 2009, 2008Da48117 (judgment)
Case name: 채권조사확정재판에대한이의
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where, in a joint guarantee given by a debtor in rehabilitation proceedings, only the principal obligor is a specially related person of the debtor and the creditor is not, is the period subject to avoidance extended to 1 year pursuant to Article 101, paragraph (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act?
Holding
It is not extended. The Supreme Court, while taking the view that the gratuitous nature of a joint guarantee is not negated unless the debtor receives direct and substantial economic benefit as consideration for the guarantee, held that the specially related person under Article 101, paragraph (3) must be determined by reference to the creditor, the direct counterparty of the joint guarantee, and that a joint guarantee given more than 6 months before the filing therefore cannot be avoided.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
비록 주채무자가 채무자와 특수관계에 있다고 하더라도 연대보증행위의 상대방인 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인이 아닌 경우에는 위 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용될 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if the principal debtor stands in a specially related relationship with the debtor, Article 101(3) of the above Act cannot apply where the creditor, the counterparty to the joint and several guarantee, is not a specially related party of the debtor.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원으로 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 연대보증행위의 직접 상대방으로서 보증에 관한 권리를 취득하여 이를 행사하는 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인인 경우를 말하며
Unofficial English translation
referring to a case where the creditor who, as the direct counterparty to that joint and several guarantee, acquires rights relating to the guarantee and exercises them is a specially related party of the debtor, and
Factors
- 달리 채무자가 보증의 대가로서 직접적이고도 현실적인 경제적 이익을 받지 아니하는 한 그 보증행위의 무상성을 부정할 수는 없다
- 채무자가 취득하게 될 구상권이 언제나 보증행위의 대가로서의 경제적 이익에 해당한다고 볼 수도 없으므로
- 연대보증행위의 직접 상대방으로서 보증에 관한 권리를 취득하여 이를 행사하는 채권자
- 비록 주채무자가 채무자와 특수관계에 있다고 하더라도
Unofficial English translation
• unless the debtor receives direct and concrete economic benefit as consideration for the guarantee, the gratuitous nature of the guarantee cannot be negated
• in that the right to reimbursement to be acquired by the debtor cannot always be regarded as economic benefit constituting consideration for the guarantee,
• the creditor who, as the direct counterparty to the joint and several guarantee, acquires rights relating to the guarantee and exercises them
• even if the principal debtor stands in a specially related relationship with the debtor,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
연대보증행위의 상대방인 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인이 아닌 경우에는 위 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용될 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
where the creditor, the counterparty to the joint and several guarantee, is not a specially related party of the debtor, Article 101(3) of the above Act cannot apply
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고 2003다29128 판결, 대법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2006다50444 판결(공2008하, 1762)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Is the extension of the avoidance period also excluded where the creditor is not a specially related person but was closely related to the principal obligor and could have obtained the debtor's internal information or could have influenced the timing of the filing?
If the wording concerning specially related persons in Article 100, paragraph (1), subparagraph 4 or Article 101, paragraph (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is amended, this reading will be checked again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI family (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
Because the original text states the gratuitous nature and the scope of specially related persons expressly but does not clarify the relation to prior precedents, the first reading may focus on the statement of concrete criteria, while the independent reading may focus on the application of existing legal principles.
대법원 2003. 9. 26. 선고 2003다29128 판결Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Is the extension of the avoidance period also excluded where the creditor is not a specially related person but was closely related to the principal obligor and could have obtained the debtor's internal information or could have influenced the timing of the filing?” vs Independent “Under what circumstances can the right to reimbursement acquired by the debtor be recognized as direct and substantial economic benefit constituting consideration for the guarantee?”
The first reading asks about the effect that a non-specially-related creditor's access to information or influence over the timing of the filing has on the extension of the period, while the independent reading asks about the conditions under which the right to reimbursement is recognized as consideration for the guarantee.
비록 주채무자가 채무자와 특수관계에 있다고 하더라도 연대보증행위의 상대방인 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인이 아닌 경우에는 위 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용될 수 없다.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 nonparty 1 medical corporation had never obtained direct and substantial economic benefit from the joint guarantee and that the guarantee therefore constituted a gratuitous act. Going further, it applied Article 101, paragraph (3) on the ground that nonparty 2, the principal obligor, was a specially related person as the chairman of the medical corporation, thereby extending the avoidance period, and held that joint guarantees given before 6 months prior to the filing for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings (September 26, 2006) are also subject to avoidance.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the court below's holding on gratuitousness as justifiable, being in accordance with the purport of Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29128. However, a joint guarantee is, separate from the principal obligation, a juristic act between the joint guarantor and the creditor; accordingly, whether a person is a specially related person must be determined by reference to the creditor as the direct counterparty, and since the plaintiff, the creditor, is not a specially related person, the extension of the period does not apply. On that basis, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the ground of the court below's misapprehension of legal principles.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the creditor, the direct counterparty of the joint guarantee, is itself a specially related person of the debtor
- Where the debtor receives direct and substantial economic benefit as consideration for the guarantee, so that the gratuitous nature is negated
- Where the act of guarantee took place after a suspension of payment or a filing for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, or within 6 months prior thereto, so that it is subject to avoidance even without any extension of the period
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, first check whether there are any circumstances under which the creditor that acquires and exercises the claim against a guarantor falls within the specially related persons of Article 101, paragraph (1), and whether the time of the act of guarantee was within 6 months before the filing.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 회생절차의 채무자가 주채무자를 위하여 보증을 제공한 것이 채권자의 주채무자에 대한 출연의 직접 원인이 되는 경우, 보증행위의 무상성이 부정되는지 여부(소극) [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용되는 ‘특수관계인을 상대방으로 하는 행위’에 연대보증의 주채무자가 특수관계인인 경우도 포함되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the gratuitous nature of a guarantee is negated (negative), where a debtor in rehabilitation proceedings provides a guarantee for a principal debtor and such guarantee becomes the direct cause of the creditor's contribution to the principal debtor [2] Whether the term 'an act whose counterparty is a specially related party' under Article 101(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act also includes a case in which the principal debtor of a joint and several guarantee is a specially related party (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 회생절차의 채무자가 주채무자를 위하여 보증을 제공한 것이 채권자의 주채무자에 대한 출연의 직접적 원인이 되는 경우에도, 채무자의 보증행위와 이로써 이익을 얻은 채권자의 출연과의 사이에는 사실상의 관계가 있음에 지나지 않고 채무자가 취득하게 될 구상권이 언제나 보증행위의 대가로서의 경제적 이익에 해당한다고 볼 수도 없으므로, 달리 채무자가 보증의 대가로서 직접적이고도 현실적인 경제적 이익을 받지 아니하는 한 그 보증행위의 무상성을 부정할 수는 없다. [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제4호에 따른 부인 대상이 연대보증행위인 사안에서 부인 대상 행위의 기간을 확장하는 위 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용되는 상대방이 특수관계인인 경우라 함은, 그 연대보증행위의 직접 상대방으로서 보증에 관한 권리를 취득하여 이를 행사하는 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인인 경우를 말하며, 비록 주채무자가 채무자와 특수관계에 있다고 하더라도 연대보증행위의 상대방인 채권자가 채무자의 특수관계인이 아닌 경우에는 위 법률 제101조 제3항이 적용될 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원으로 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제4호, 제101조 제3항 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제4호, 제101조 제3항
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