Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Omission of a deposit return claim from the reorganisation claim list
Supreme Court, Sept. 3, 2020, 2015Da236028 (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: 임대차보증금·임대차보증금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must an administrator enter in the list of reorganisation creditors a claim whose existence it does not accept, and does confirmation of the plan nonetheless extinguish a deposit return claim that went unreported because its holder knew nothing of the procedure?
Holding
The administrator must enter in the list a claimed reorganisation credit unless its non-existence is objectively clear. Where the holder, not having received individual notice of the commencement and the reporting period, failed to report by the creditors' meeting while the administrator knew or could easily have known of the claim and still omitted it, Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not extinguish the claim on confirmation of the plan. A clause sending an unconfirmed claim to the modification and payment method of the most similar claim is construed as a whole, and here the lessees may seek return of the full principal of the deposit return claim.
Points at issue, verbatim
미확정 회생채권에 해당하는 갑 등의 위 채권과 가장 유사한 회생채권이 회생계획에 구체적으로 기재되어 있지 않으므로, 종합적인 해석을 통해 권리변경 및 변제방법을 정하여야 하는데, 제반 사정에 비추어 갑 등은 을 회사를 상대로 임대차보증금반환채권의 원금 전액에 관하여 반환을 구할 수 있다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
since the rehabilitation claim most similar to the above claim of A and others, which constitutes an unconfirmed rehabilitation claim, is not specifically set forth in the rehabilitation plan, the modification of rights and the method of repayment must be determined through a comprehensive interpretation, and, in light of all circumstances, A and others may claim against B Corporation the return of the entire principal of the claim for return of lease deposits, and this determination of the court below was affirmed
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고(반소피고)가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim).
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그 문언의 형식과 내용, 회생계획안 작성 경위, 회생절차 이해관계인들의 진정한 의사 등을 종합적으로 고려하여
Unofficial English translation
by comprehensively considering the form and content of its wording, the circumstances in which the rehabilitation plan was prepared, the true intentions of the interested parties in the rehabilitation proceedings, and the like
Factors
- 관리인이 회생절차에 관하여 주장되는 어떠한 회생채권의 존재를 인정하지 아니하는 경우에도
- 회생채권자가 회생절차에 관하여 알지 못하여 회생계획안 심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝날 때까지 채권신고를 하지 못하고
- 관리인이 회생채권의 존재 또는 그러한 회생채권이 주장되는 사실을 알고 있거나 이를 쉽게 알 수 있었음에도 회생채권자 목록에 기재하지 아니한 경우
- 미확정 회생채권에 해당하는 갑 등의 위 채권과 가장 유사한 회생채권이 회생계획에 구체적으로 기재되어 있지 않으므로
- 제반 사정에 비추어 갑 등은 을 회사를 상대로 임대차보증금반환채권의 원금 전액에 관하여 반환을 구할 수 있다고
Unofficial English translation
• even where the administrator does not acknowledge the existence of such rehabilitation claim asserted in connection with the rehabilitation proceedings
• where a rehabilitation creditor, unaware of the rehabilitation proceedings, was unable to file a claim until the conclusion of the meeting of interested parties for deliberation on the rehabilitation plan, and
• where the administrator, although knowing of the existence of such rehabilitation claim or of the fact that such rehabilitation claim was asserted, or readily able to ascertain it, did not enter it in the list of rehabilitation creditors
• since the rehabilitation claim most similar to the above claim of A and others, which constitutes an unconfirmed rehabilitation claim, is not specifically set forth in the rehabilitation plan
• in light of all circumstances, A and others may claim against B Corporation the return of the entire principal of the claim for return of lease deposits
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 2. 13.자 2011그256 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Geu256 decided February 13, 2012
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2012. 2. 13.자 2011그256 결정 / [3] 대법원 2008. 6. 26. 선고 2006다77197 판결(공2008하, 1052), 대법원 2018. 5. 30. 선고 2018다203722, 203739 판결(공2018하, 1189)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a dispute arises over a modification and payment method that the plan leaves to the court on the administrator's application, and the administrator is the party that omitted the claim, how is that gap bridged?
A later decision applying the Article 147 list duty where the non-existence of the claim was objectively clear, or treating a claimant who knew of the procedure differently, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 147 or Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary relies on a holistic reading of the whole plan (종합 고려), while the independent reading states conditions for non-extinction and for reasonable interpretation (요건 제시). Both point to the same outcome.
회생채권자가 회생절차에 관하여 알지 못하여 회생계획안 심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝날 때까지 채권신고를 하지 못하고, 관리인이 회생채권의 존재 또는 그러한 회생채권이 주장되는 사실을 알고 있거나 이를 쉽게 알 수 있었음에도 회생채권자 목록에 기재하지 아니한 경우, 회생계획의 인가결정에 따라 회생채권이 실권되는지 여부(소극)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 Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 21 August 2015 (2015Na51426, 3847), held that the plaintiff's administrator omitted the lessees' deposit return claim from the secured and unsecured creditor lists intentionally or with gross negligence, and that the lessees, having had no chance to take part in a procedure that then closed, held a claim not extinguished by confirmation under Article 251. It also held that the confirmed plan only referred to the most similar reorganisation claim without naming it, so the modification and payment method had to be fixed by comprehensive construction, and that the lessees could seek return of the full principal. It relied on the plan's sale of the commercial building within 2013, on rents collected for over thirty months approaching twice the deposit, and on the likelihood that full recovery would have followed listing.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in any part. It accepted the finding that the administrator knew or could easily have known of the claim and omitted it, and set out the reading that the list duty of Article 147 reaches a claimed credit even when its existence is denied, unless its non-existence is objectively clear. It held the reasoning on non-extinguishment under Article 251 and the comprehensive construction of the plan clause to be sound, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal in full, with the appeal costs on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claimed reorganisation credit whose non-existence is objectively clear, so that the administrator is under no duty to enter it in the list.
- A holder who received individual notice of the commencement and the reporting period and reported the claim before the end of the creditors' meeting, so that no omission was needed.
- A plan that names the specific claim most similar to the unconfirmed credit, so that comprehensive construction is unnecessary.
Record verification notes
Set the file against three points before relying on this decision. First, whether the claimant received any individual notice of the commencement decision and the reporting period, and when the creditors' meeting ended. Second, what the administrator held that showed or could have shown the claim, since the duty turns on actual or easily obtainable knowledge. Third, the wording of the plan clause on unconfirmed claims and whether a similar claim is named in it, together with the plan's own sale timetable for the property.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 관리인이 회생절차에 관하여 주장되는 어떠한 회생채권의 존재를 인정하지 아니하는 경우에도 이를 회생채권자 목록에 기재하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 회생채권자가 회생절차에 관하여 알지 못하여 회생계획안 심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝날 때까지 채권신고를 하지 못하고, 관리인이 회생채권의 존재 또는 그러한 회생채권이 주장되는 사실을 알고 있거나 이를 쉽게 알 수 있었음에도 회생채권자 목록에 기재하지 아니한 경우, 회생계획의 인가결정에 따라 회생채권이 실권되는지 여부(소극) [3] 회생계획의 해석 방법 [4] 갑 등이 을 주식회사로부터 상가를 임차한 후 을 회사에 대한 회생절차가 개시되었으나 을 회사의 관리인이 회생채권자 목록에 갑 등의 임대차보증금반환채권을 기재하지 아니하였고, 갑 등은 회생절차에 관하여 알지 못하여 채권신고를 하지 못한 채 회생절차가 종결되었는데, 회생계획에서 미확정 회생채권이 확정될 경우 권리의 성질 및 내용을 고려하여 가장 유사한 회생채권의 권리변경 및 변제방법에 따라 변제한다고 정한 사안에서, 위 임대차보증금반환채권은 회생계획인가에 의하여 실권되지 아니하고, 미확정 회생채권에 해당하는 갑 등의 위 채권과 가장 유사한 회생채권이 회생계획에 구체적으로 기재되어 있지 않으므로, 종합적인 해석을 통해 권리변경 및 변제방법을 정하여야 하는데, 제반 사정에 비추어 갑 등은 을 회사를 상대로 임대차보증금반환채권의 원금 전액에 관하여 반환을 구할 수 있다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the administrator must enter in the list of rehabilitation creditors the existence of any rehabilitation claim asserted in connection with the rehabilitation proceedings, even where the administrator does not acknowledge the existence of such rehabilitation claim (affirmative in principle) [2] Where a rehabilitation creditor, unaware of the rehabilitation proceedings, was unable to file a claim until the conclusion of the meeting of interested parties for deliberation on the rehabilitation plan, and the administrator, although knowing of the existence of such rehabilitation claim or of the fact that such rehabilitation claim was asserted, or readily able to ascertain it, did not enter it in the list of rehabilitation creditors, whether the rehabilitation claim is forfeited by operation of the approval order of the rehabilitation plan (negative) [3] The method of interpreting a rehabilitation plan [4] A case where A and others leased a commercial space from B Corporation, and rehabilitation proceedings were commenced against B Corporation, but the administrator of B Corporation did not enter in the list of rehabilitation creditors the claims of A and others for return of lease deposits, and A and others, unaware of the rehabilitation proceedings, were unable to file claims and the rehabilitation proceedings were concluded, and, under the rehabilitation plan, it was provided that, where an unconfirmed rehabilitation claim becomes confirmed, repayment shall be made in accordance with the modification of rights and the method of repayment of the most similar rehabilitation claim in consideration of the nature and content of the right, and where the court below, holding that the above claim for return of lease deposits was not forfeited by the approval of the rehabilitation plan, and that, since the rehabilitation claim most similar to the above claim of A and others, which constitutes an unconfirmed rehabilitation claim, is not specifically set forth in the rehabilitation plan, the modification of rights and the method of repayment must be determined through a comprehensive interpretation, and that, in light of all circumstances, A and others may claim against B Corporation the return of the entire principal of the claim for return of lease deposits, and this determination of the court below was affirmed
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
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고(반소피고)가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim).
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제147조 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제147조, 제148조, 제152조, 제251조 [3] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제193조, 민법 제105조 [4] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제147조, 제148조, 제152조, 제193조, 제251조, 민법 제105조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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