Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Whether a recourse claim omitted from the schedule of creditors constitutes a non-dischargeable claim omitted in bad faith, and the criteria for determining the debtor's bad faith
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Oct. 14, 2010, 2010Da49083 (judgment)
Case name: 사해행위취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a claim that the debtor, knowing of the existence of the debt, failed to enter in the schedule of creditors through negligence also a non-dischargeable claim under Article 566, subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and how is the debtor's bad faith determined?
Holding
Where the debtor knew of the existence of the debt, the claim constitutes a non-dischargeable claim even though it was omitted through negligence. The Supreme Court held that whether bad faith exists must be determined by comprehensively considering matters such as the particulars of the omitted claim and their connection, the relationship between the creditor and the debtor, and whether the explanation of the circumstances of the omission accords with objective materials, and that good faith must not readily be recognized on the basis of the materials submitted by the debtor alone.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
채무자가 채무의 존재를 알고 있었다면 과실로 채권자목록에 이를 기재하지 못하였다고 하더라도 위 법조항에서 정하는 비면책채권에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
If the debtor was aware of the existence of the debt, the claim falls under the non-dischargeable claim provided for in the aforesaid statutory provision, even though the debtor failed to include it in the list of creditors through negligence.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
누락된 채권의 내역과 채무자와의 견련성, 그 채권자와 채무자의 관계, 누락의 경위에 관한 채무자의 소명과 객관적 자료와의 부합 여부 등 여러 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
a determination must be made by comprehensively considering the various circumstances, such as the details of the omitted claim and its connection with the debtor, the relationship between that creditor and the debtor, and whether the debtor's explanation as to how the omission came about is consistent with objective materials, and
Factors
- 채무자가 면책결정 이전에 파산채권자에 대한 채무의 존재 사실을 알면서도 이를 채권자목록에 기재하지 않은 경우
- 누락된 채권의 내역과 채무자와의 견련성
- 그 채권자와 채무자의 관계
- 누락의 경위에 관한 채무자의 소명과 객관적 자료와의 부합 여부
Unofficial English translation
• Where the debtor, prior to the discharge order, was aware of the existence of the debt owed to the bankruptcy creditor yet failed to include it in the list of creditors
• The details of the omitted claim and its connection with the debtor
• The relationship between that creditor and the debtor
• Whether the debtor's explanation as to how the omission came about is consistent with objective materials
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다76500 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da76500 decided January 11, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다76500 판결(공2007상, 284), 대법원 2009. 3. 30. 자 2009마225 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
May bad faith be recognized under the same standard where the point at which the debtor may be found to have known of the existence of the debt extends to a time immediately before the discharge order?
This reading will be re-examined if the non-dischargeable claim provision of Article 566, subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is amended or if subsequent decisions concerning the determination of bad faith are rendered.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by a different AI family (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “May bad faith be recognized under the same standard where the point at which the debtor may be found to have known of the existence of the debt extends to a time immediately before the discharge order?” vs Independent “Does the omission of a claim constitute a non-dischargeable claim omitted in bad faith even where the debtor knew of the existence of the debt but mistakenly believed that the debt had already been extinguished?”
The first reading raises the debtor's recognition of the debt immediately before the discharge order, while the independent reading raises the mistaken belief that the debt had been extinguished.
채무자가 채무의 존재를 알고 있었다면 과실로 채권자목록에 이를 기재하지 못하였다고 하더라도 위 법조항에서 정하는 비면책채권에 해당한다.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, although it is true that non-party 2 failed to enter the plaintiff's recourse claim in the schedule of creditors, with the result that the plaintiff had no opportunity to participate in the bankruptcy and discharge proceedings, there was no particular ground for denial of discharge, and it is difficult to regard the entry of the claim as a bank debt as conferring a special benefit on the debtor, so the omission was insufficient to be regarded as intentional. Accordingly, it held that the recourse claim was not a non-dischargeable claim and that the right to revoke a fraudulent act could not be exercised with that claim as the claim to be preserved.
Supreme Court standard: Having regard to non-party 2's status as a director of a non-party company and the personal relationship with the joint sureties, the service of the copy of the complaint and the notice of the hearing date in the recourse lawsuit, and the fact that the application appears to have been prepared on the basis of a certificate of the outstanding balance of the debt, the Supreme Court found that the existence of the recourse debt had been known before the application was prepared. The circumstances relied on by the court below can only serve as a basis for negligence and cannot serve as a basis for non-knowledge; nor can it be categorically stated that there was no special benefit, given that the bank's claim was extinguished by payment by subrogation and the likelihood of the bank raising an objection was very slight. On those grounds, it reversed on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles and failure to exhaust deliberations.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case where the debtor did not know of the existence of the debt itself before the discharge order and there was only negligence in not knowing of it
- A case where there is no objective material, such as service of a copy of the complaint or a certificate of the outstanding balance of the debt, showing that the debtor recognized the debt
- A case where the omitted creditor participated in the discharge proceedings through another channel and thus had the opportunity to file an objection in substance
Record verification notes
Before asserting omission in bad faith, first check whether there is objective material showing that the debtor knew of the existence of the debt, or whether the matter amounts to no more than negligence in confusing the attribution of the debt or the designation of the creditor.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호에서 말하는 ‘채무자가 악의로 채권자목록에 기재하지 아니한 청구권’의 의미 및 채무자의 악의 여부의 판단 기준 [2] 채권자목록에 누락된 을의 구상금채권이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호의 비면책채권에 해당하지 아니한다고 한 원심에 대하여, 제반 사정에 비추어보면 갑이 과실로 채권자목록에 을에 대한 구상금채무를 기재하지 아니하였다고 볼 수는 있을지언정, 갑이 을의 구상금채권의 존재를 알지 못하였다고 인정할 수 있는 근거가 되는 사정이라 할 수 없다는 등의 이유를 들어 원심판결을 파기한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of "a claim that the debtor failed to include in the list of creditors in bad faith" as used in subparagraph 7 of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the criteria for determining whether the debtor acted in bad faith [2] A case in which, with respect to the court below's holding that B's recourse claim omitted from the list of creditors did not constitute a non-dischargeable claim under subparagraph 7 of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the judgment of the court below was reversed on the grounds that, although A might be regarded as having negligently failed to include in the list of creditors A's recourse debt to B, the circumstances invoked cannot be regarded as grounds for finding that A was unaware of the existence of B's recourse claim
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호에서 말하는 ‘채무자가 악의로 채권자목록에 기재하지 아니한 청구권’이라고 함은 채무자가 면책결정 이전에 파산채권자에 대한 채무의 존재 사실을 알면서도 이를 채권자목록에 기재하지 않은 경우를 뜻하므로, 채무자가 채무의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 비록 그와 같이 알지 못한 데에 과실이 있더라도 위 법조항에 정한 비면책채권에 해당하지 아니하지만, 이와 달리 채무자가 채무의 존재를 알고 있었다면 과실로 채권자목록에 이를 기재하지 못하였다고 하더라도 위 법조항에서 정하는 비면책채권에 해당한다. 이와 같이 채권자목록에 기재하지 아니한 청구권을 면책대상에서 제외한 이유는, 채권자목록에 기재되지 아니한 채권자가 있을 경우 그 채권자로서는 면책절차 내에서 면책신청에 대한 이의 등을 신청할 기회를 박탈당하게 될 뿐만 아니라 그에 따라 위 법 제564조에서 정한 면책불허가사유에 대한 객관적 검증도 없이 면책이 허가, 확정되면 원칙적으로 채무자가 채무를 변제할 책임에서 벗어나게 되므로, 위와 같은 절차 참여의 기회를 갖지 못한 채 불이익을 받게 되는 채권자를 보호하기 위한 것이다. 따라서 사실과 맞지 아니하는 채권자목록의 작성에 관한 채무자의 악의 여부는 위에서 본 위 법 제566조 제7호의 규정 취지를 충분히 감안하여, 누락된 채권의 내역과 채무자와의 견련성, 그 채권자와 채무자의 관계, 누락의 경위에 관한 채무자의 소명과 객관적 자료와의 부합 여부 등 여러 사정을 종합하여 판단하여야 하고, 단순히 채무자가 제출한 자료만으로는 면책불허가 사유가 보이지 않는다는 등의 점만을 들어 채무자의 선의를 쉽게 인정하여서는 아니된다. [2] 채권자목록에 누락된 을의 구상금채권이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호의 비면책채권에 해당하지 아니한다고 한 원심에 대하여, 제반 사정에 비추어보면 갑이 과실로 채권자목록에 을에 대한 구상금채무를 기재하지 아니하였다고 볼 수는 있을지언정, 갑이 을의 구상금채권의 존재를 알지 못하였다고 인정할 수 있는 근거가 되는 사정이라 할 수 없다는 등의 이유를 들어 원심판결을 파기한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호
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