Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Order of Allocation of Provisional Payments and the Common Benefit Claim Status of Claims Revived by Avoidance after a Meeting of Interested Parties
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 28, 2010, 2009Da40349 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 부당이득금반환
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If a provisional payment made to avoid provisional execution falls short of the total of the legitimate principal and default interest, in what order is it allocated, and does a claim revived by an action for avoidance after the meeting of interested parties receive the effect of the modified plan?
Holding
Absent special circumstances, a provisional payment is allocated to legitimate funds in the order of default interest and then principal. A claim that was revived by avoidance after the meeting of interested parties and thereby became impossible to exercise is a common benefit claim, namely a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, to be returned on the same terms as claims of the same nature under the reorganization plan, and unless the opposing party consents, the change in the method of repayment set forth in the modified plan does not extend to it.
Points at issue, verbatim
정리회사는 상대방에게 부활한 채권과 같은 성질의 채권에 관하여 정리계획에서 인정된 것과 동일한 조건으로 계산한 돈을 지급할 의무가 있고
Unofficial English translation
the company in reorganization owes the duty to pay to the counterparty money calculated on the same conditions as those recognized in the reorganization plan with respect to a claim of the same nature as the revived claim, and
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
민법 소정의 변제충당의 법리에 따라 원고가 피고에게 지급하여야 할 정당한 금원에 관하여 지연손해금, 원본의 순서로 변제에 충당되어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Under the legal principle of appropriation of payment prescribed in the Civil Act, as to the just amount that the plaintiff must pay to the defendant, payment must be appropriated in the order of delayed damages and then principal
Factors
- 가지급금의 액수가 채권자에게 지급하여야 할 정당한 금원인 원본 및 지연손해금 합계액에 미치지 못한 경우
- 관계인집회가 끝난 후에 부인의 소를 제기함으로써 상대방이 부활한 채권을 행사할 수 없게 된 경우
- 변제기 유예 등 공익채권자의 권리에 영향을 미치는 규정을 둔 경우
- 부활한 채권은 성질상 부당이득반환채권으로서 공익채권에 해당하므로
Unofficial English translation
• Where the amount of the advance payment is less than the total amount of principal and delayed damages, which is the just amount to be paid to the creditor
• Where an avoidance action was filed after the conclusion of the meeting of interested parties, thereby making it impossible for the counterparty to exercise the revived claim
• Where provisions affecting the rights of holders of common benefit claims, such as deferment of the due date for payment, were provided
• Since the revived claim is by nature a claim for return of unjust enrichment and thus constitutes a common benefit claim
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95다38127 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 95Da38127 decided December 12, 1995
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95다38127 판결(공1996상, 382) / [2] 대법원 2003. 1. 10. 선고 2002다36235 판결(공2003상, 619), 대법원 2004. 9. 13. 선고 2001다45874 판결(공2004하, 1655) / [3] 대법원 1991. 3. 12. 선고 90누2833 판결(공1991, 1195)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In what circumstances are special circumstances recognized that displace the principle of allocating a provisional payment in the order of default interest and principal?
This reading will be re-checked if the interpretation of Article 179 (1) subparagraph 6 and Article 180 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or the case law on the allocation of provisional payments, changes.
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 AI family (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, because the Supreme Court on final appeal reversed only the portion of the default interest claim on which the defendant had lost in the appellate court, the portion of the appellate judgment in which the defendant prevailed became final simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of last resort, and that the first repayment made through provisional execution extinguished principal of 745,889,750 won and default interest of 66,435,494 won. It therefore found that, of the plaintiff's second repayment of 266,436,648 won, 34,923,595 won had been overpaid, and granted the claim for return. It further held that the revived bill discount loan claim was a common benefit claim, a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, and that, absent the plaintiff's consent, the change in the method of repayment under the modified plan did not extend to it, and, in the alternative, relied on the partial transfer of the maximum amount mortgage and quasi co-ownership.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, regardless of whether part of the judgment of the court below became final, where a provisional payment falls short of legitimate funds it must be allocated in the order of default interest and principal, and reversed and remanded the portion concerning the claim for return of the overpaid amount. As for the revived claim, the Supreme Court accepted the principal holding of the court below, but regarded the supplementary holding on the partial transfer of the maximum amount mortgage and quasi co-ownership as erroneous yet without effect on the outcome of the judgment, and dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the provisional payment equals or exceeds the finally determined total amount of principal and default interest, or where special circumstances regarding allocation exist between the parties
- Where the action for avoidance was filed before the meeting of interested parties for the deliberation of the reorganization plan concluded, so that the opposing party could have declared the revived claim as a reorganization claim
- Where the common benefit claimant consented to the modification of rights under the reorganization plan or the modified plan
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check whether the legitimate principal and default interest as of the time the provisional payment was made were calculated on the basis of the finally determined amounts, whether the holder of the revived claim would have been recognized as a claim of what nature under the reorganization plan, and whether there are no circumstances showing consent to the modified plan.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 가집행선고로 인한 강제집행을 면하기 위하여 채무자가 지급한 가지급금의 액수가 채권자에게 지급하여야 할 정당한 금원인 원본 및 지연손해금 합계액에 미치지 못한 경우, 변제충당의 순서 [2] 정리회사의 관리인이 정리계획안 심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝난 후에 부인의 소를 제기함으로써 상대방이 부활한 채권을 행사할 수 없게 된 경우, 그로 인한 이득을 정리절차개시 후 부당이득으로서 반환하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 그 경우 반환하여야 할 부당이득액 [3] 정리계획에서 공익채권에 관하여 변제기 유예 등 공익채권자의 권리에 영향을 미치는 규정을 둔 경우, 그 권리변경의 효력이 공익채권자에게 미치는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [4] 정리회사 관리인이 정리계획안 심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝난 후에 부인 등의 소를 제기함에 따라 상대방이 부인의 결과로 부활하게 된 어음할인대출채권에 대하여 권리신고를 하지 못한 사안에서, 정리회사는 상대방에게 부활한 채권과 같은 성질의 채권에 관하여 정리계획에서 인정된 것과 동일한 조건으로 계산한 돈을 지급할 의무가 있고, 부활한 채권은 성질상 부당이득반환채권으로서 공익채권에 해당하므로, 변경계획에서 그 변제방법을 변경하기로 정하였더라도 상대방이 이에 동의하지 않은 이상 그 변경의 효력이 상대방에게 미치지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The order of appropriation of payment where the amount of the advance payment made by the debtor to avoid compulsory execution arising from a declaration of provisional execution is less than the total amount of principal and delayed damages, which is the just amount to be paid to the creditor [2] Where the trustee of a company in reorganization filed an avoidance action after the conclusion of the meeting of interested parties for deliberation on the reorganization plan, thereby making it impossible for the counterparty to exercise the revived claim, whether the benefit gained thereby must be returned as unjust enrichment after the commencement of the reorganization proceeding (affirmative), and the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned in such a case [3] Where the reorganization plan provides, with respect to common benefit claims, provisions affecting the rights of holders of common benefit claims, such as deferment of the due date for payment, whether the effect of such alteration of rights extends to holders of common benefit claims (negative in principle) [4] A case holding that, in a case where the counterparty was unable to file a claim report on a discounted bill loan claim that was revived as a result of avoidance, because the trustee of the company in reorganization filed an avoidance action or the like after the conclusion of the meeting of interested parties for deliberation on the reorganization plan, the company in reorganization owes the duty to pay to the counterparty money calculated on the same conditions as those recognized in the reorganization plan with respect to a claim of the same nature as the revived claim, and since the revived claim is by nature a claim for return of unjust enrichment and thus constitutes a common benefit claim, even if the amended plan provides for a change in the method of payment thereof, such change does not affect the counterparty unless the counterparty consents thereto
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 피고 패소 부분 중 초과지급된 금원의 반환청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
As to the part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, the part concerning the claim for return of the overpaid amount is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제477조, 민사소송법 제213조, 민사집행법 제24조 [2] 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 참조), 제127조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제3항 제1호 참조), 제208조 제6호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제6호 참조) [3] 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제209조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제180조 제1항 참조), 제211조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제193조 제1항 제2호 참조), 제216조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제199조 참조) [4] 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 참조), 제127조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제3항 제1호 참조), 제208조 제6호(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제6호 참조), 구 회사정리법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제209조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제180조 제1항 참조), 제211조 제1항(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제193조 제1항 제2호 참조), 제216조(현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제199조 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