Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Roles of Supplementary Filing of Rehabilitation Claims and the Claim Investigation and Determination Trial
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 24, 2018, 2015Da56789 (judgment)
Case name: 회생채권조사확정재판에대한이의의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the lawfulness of a late filing of a claim after the approval of a rehabilitation plan be contested in an action for determination?
Holding
The court takes the view that, once a supplementary filing has been accepted and the investigation procedure has been completed up to the special investigation hearing, a dispute over the supplementation requirements is not permitted. The ground given is that the determination of the lawfulness of a supplementary filing is a procedural determination as to whether it is to be accepted, and the claim investigation and determination procedure is not a procedure that forfeits a claim. The court states that the claim investigation and determination trial is to the same effect, so that a contention that the supplementation requirements were defective may not be raised. However, where there is a reason for which participation within the filing period could not be expected, supplementation is recognized as possible even after the meeting of interested parties. A statement as to lawfulness is not an objection under Article 170, paragraph (1), and whether an interested party has made an objection is ascertained by looking to whether the statement proceeded from an intention to block confirmation.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제153조에 따라 신고기간 경과 후에 생긴 회생채권이 신고된 경우, 회생법원은 위 제153조 제1항과, 제153조 제2항이 준용하고 있는 제152조 제2항, 제3항의 요건을 심사하여 신고의 적법 여부에 따라 각하결정을 하거나 회생채권으로서 조사절차를 거쳐야 한다
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a rehabilitation claim arising after the lapse of the reporting period has been reported pursuant to Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act"), the rehabilitation court must examine the requirements of Article 153 (1) of the aforesaid Act and of Article 152 (2) and (3), which are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 153 (2) thereof, and, according to the lawfulness of the report, issue an order of dismissal on procedural grounds or go through the investigation procedure as a rehabilitation claim
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
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제153조에 따라 신고기간 경과 후에 생긴 회생채권이 신고된 경우, 회생법원은 위 제153조 제1항과, 제153조 제2항이 준용하고 있는 제152조 제2항, 제3항의 요건을 심사하여 신고의 적법 여부에 따라 각하결정을 하거나 회생채권으로서 조사절차를 거쳐야 한다
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a rehabilitation claim arising after the lapse of the reporting period has been reported pursuant to Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act"), the rehabilitation court must examine the requirements of Article 153 (1) of the aforesaid Act and of Article 152 (2) and (3), which are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 153 (2) thereof, and, according to the lawfulness of the report, issue an order of dismissal on procedural grounds or go through the investigation procedure as a rehabilitation claim
Factors
- 회생법원은 위 제153조 제1항과
- 제153조 제2항이 준용하고 있는 제152조 제2항
- 제3항의 요건을 심사하여 신고의 적법 여부에 따라 각하결정을 하거나 회생채권으로서 조사절차를 거쳐야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• the rehabilitation court must examine the requirements of Article 153 (1) of the aforesaid Act and
• of Article 152 (2) and (3), which are applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 153 (2) thereof
• and, according to the lawfulness of the report, issue an order of dismissal on procedural grounds or go through the investigation procedure as a rehabilitation claim
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
[2] 대법원 2012. 2. 13.자 2011그256 결정
Unofficial English translation
[2] Supreme Court Decision 2011Geu256 decided February 13, 2012
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2012. 2. 13.자 2011그256 결정, 대법원 2016. 11. 25. 선고 2014다82439 판결(공2017상, 13)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far may a statement made at the special investigation hearing be recognized as a dispute over the existence of the claim?
If a reason for which participation within the filing period could not be expected is newly confirmed, whether supplementation is to be permitted is examined anew. It is also a standard where it is ascertained whether the statement made at the special investigation hearing proceeded from an intention to block confirmation.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched Gemini 3.1 Pro · 2026-10-16
In the cross-family AI independent reading results, 7 of the 8 axes were in agreement, and on Axis 4 (Form of the test) a difference of interpretation depending on where the focus of the judgment's wording is placed was identified.
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The first part of the Summary of Decision defines the requirements for its legal constitution, while the latter part instructs that the various circumstances be comprehensively weighed in applying it to the specific case, so the classification diverges depending on whether the center of gravity is placed on the definitional proposition or the applicatory proposition.
또, 관리인이 아닌 회생채권자 등 이해관계인이 특별조사기일에서 채권조사확정재판을 제기하여야 할 채무자회생법 제170조 제1항에서 정한 ‘이의’를 하였는지는 특별조사기일에서 한 이의의 진술 내용뿐만 아니라 이에 이르게 된 이유나 경위 및 방식, 관리인이나 다른 이해관계인의 이의 여부 및 이의를 하였다면 그 내용 등 제반 사정을 고려하여, 특별조사기일에서 한 이의가 채권조사확정재판절차에서 응소책임을 부담하면서까지 당해 채권의 확정을 차단하기 위한 의사에서 비롯된 것인지에 따라 결정하여야 한다.Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below held that, inasmuch as the rehabilitation court recognized that the defendant's supplementary filing satisfied the requirements and proceeded as far as setting a special investigation hearing, the lawfulness of that supplementary filing could not be contested in this action for objection to the claim investigation and determination trial. Further, it held that only the statutory manager raised an objection at the special investigation hearing, and that the defendant was not at fault in applying for the claim investigation and determination trial against the statutory manager alone.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, in a claim investigation and determination trial, a ground that the requirements for subsequent supplementation of a filing had not been met may not be asserted, and that a statement concerning the lawfulness of a supplementary filing does not correspond to an objection as provided in Article 170, paragraph (1); accordingly, the court below's determination was not erroneous, including through misunderstanding of legal principles. It further held that the statement made by Saemaul Geumgo at the special investigation hearing also concerned only the lawfulness of the supplementary filing and was not an objection as to the existence or content of the rehabilitation claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the rehabilitation court found the supplementary filing to be lawful but did not carry out the investigation procedure up to the special investigation hearing
- A case where the supplementary filing was made after the meeting of interested parties had concluded, without any reason for which participation within the filing period could not be expected
Record verification notes
When applying the legal principle of Supreme Court Decision 2015Da56789 to other cases, one first confirms whether the rehabilitation court regarded the supplementary filing as lawful, set a special investigation hearing, and completed the investigation procedure, and whether there was a reason for which participation within the filing period could not be expected. Whether the statement made at the special investigation hearing proceeded from an intention to block the confirmation of the claim is also checked against the Records.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제153조에 따라 신고기간 경과 후에 생긴 회생채권이 신고되었고, 회생법원이 추완신고가 적법하다고 판단하여 특별조사기일을 열어 추완신고된 채권에 대한 조사절차까지 마친 경우, 신고의 추후 보완 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 것을 사유로 하는 이의가 허용되는지 여부(소극) 및 이는 같은 법 제170조에 따른 채권조사확정재판에서도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 회생채권자가 회생법원이 정한 신고기간 내에 회생채권을 신고하는 등으로 회생절차에 참가할 것을 기대할 수 없는 사유가 있는 경우, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제3항에도 불구하고 회생채권의 신고를 보완하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 회생법원이 추완신고가 적법하다고 판단하여 특별조사기일에서 추완신고된 채권에 대한 조사절차까지 마친 경우, 채권조사확정재판에서 신고의 추후 보완 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 사유를 주장할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 회생채권의 추완신고에 따른 특별조사기일에서 추완신고의 적법 여부에 관하여 이의의 진술이 있었던 경우, 채권조사확정재판을 제기하여야 할 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제170조 제1항에서 정한 ‘이의’에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 관리인이 아닌 회생채권자 등 이해관계인이 위 조항에서 정한 ‘이의’를 하였는지 결정하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a rehabilitation claim arising after the lapse of the reporting period has been reported pursuant to Article 153 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the rehabilitation court has determined that the supplementary report is lawful and opened a special investigation date and completed even the investigation procedure on the supplementary reported claim, an objection may be raised on the ground that the requirements for subsequent supplementation of the report have not been satisfied (negative), and whether the same applies also in a judgment confirming claim under Article 170 of the same Act (affirmative) [2] Whether, where there is a reason that makes it impossible to expect a rehabilitation creditor to participate in the rehabilitation proceedings, such as by reporting a rehabilitation claim within the reporting period set by the rehabilitation court, supplementation of the report of a rehabilitation claim may be permitted notwithstanding Article 152 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (affirmative), and whether, where in such a case the rehabilitation court has determined that the supplementary report is lawful and completed even the investigation procedure on the supplementary reported claim at the special investigation date, the ground that the requirements for subsequent supplementation of the report have not been satisfied may be asserted in a judgment confirming claim (negative) [3] Whether, where at the special investigation date following a supplementary report of a rehabilitation claim a statement of objection has been made as to the lawfulness of the supplementary report, it falls under the "objection" prescribed in Article 170 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, for which an action for confirmation of claim must be filed (negative), and the criteria for determining whether an interested party such as a rehabilitation creditor other than the manager has made an "objection" prescribed in the aforesaid provision
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제153조에 따라 신고기간 경과 후에 생긴 회생채권이 신고된 경우, 회생법원은 위 제153조 제1항과, 제153조 제2항이 준용하고 있는 제152조 제2항, 제3항의 요건을 심사하여 신고의 적법 여부에 따라 각하결정을 하거나 회생채권으로서 조사절차를 거쳐야 한다. 그런데 일단 회생법원이 추완신고가 적법하다고 판단하여 특별조사기일을 열어 추완신고된 채권에 대한 조사절차까지 마친 경우에는, 채무자회생법에서 정한 신고의 추후 보완 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 것을 사유로 하는 이의는 허용되지 않는다고 봄이 타당하다. 이는 채무자회생법 제170조에 따른 채권조사확정재판에서도 마찬가지라고 보아야 하므로, 회생법원이 추완신고가 적법하다고 판단하여 특별조사기일에서 추완신고된 채권에 대한 조사절차까지 마쳤다면, 채권조사확정재판에서도 신고의 추후 보완 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 사유를 주장할 수 없다. [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제152조 제3항, 제153조 제2항은 회생계획안심리를 위한 관계인집회가 끝난 후 또는 회생계획안을 서면결의에 부친다는 결정이 있은 후에는 제152조 제1항 또는 제153조 제1항에 의한 추완신고도 허용되지 않는다고 규정하고 있다. 그러나 회생채권자가 회생법원이 정한 신고기간 내에 회생채권을 신고하는 등으로 회생절차에 참가할 것을 기대할 수 없는 사유가 있는 경우에는 제152조 제3항에도 불구하고 회생채권의 신고를 보완하는 것이 허용되어야 한다. 그리고 이 경우에도 회생법원이 추완신고가 적법하다고 판단하여 특별조사기일에서 추완신고된 채권에 대한 조사절차까지 마쳤다면, 채권조사확정재판에서 신고의 추후 보완 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 사유를 주장할 수 없다. [3] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제170조에 따른 채권조사확정재판에서는 신고의 추후 보완의 요건을 구비하지 않았다는 사유를 주장할 수 없다. 따라서 특별조사기일에서 추완신고의 적법 여부에 관하여 이의의 진술이 있었다고 하더라도 이는 채권조사확정재판을 제기하여야 할 채무자회생법 제170조 제1항에서 정한 ‘이의’에 해당하지 않는다. 또, 관리인이 아닌 회생채권자 등 이해관계인이 특별조사기일에서 채권조사확정재판을 제기하여야 할 채무자회생법 제170조 제1항에서 정한 ‘이의’를 하였는지는 특별조사기일에서 한 이의의 진술 내용뿐만 아니라 이에 이르게 된 이유나 경위 및 방식, 관리인이나 다른 이해관계인의 이의 여부 및 이의를 하였다면 그 내용 등 제반 사정을 고려하여, 특별조사기일에서 한 이의가 채권조사확정재판절차에서 응소책임을 부담하면서까지 당해 채권의 확정을 차단하기 위한 의사에서 비롯된 것인지에 따라 결정하여야 한다.
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
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제2항, 제3항, 제153조, 제162조, 제170조 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제1항, 제3항, 제153조, 제162조, 제170조 [3] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제152조 제1항, 제3항, 제153조, 제162조, 제170조
Read 2026-10-15 · 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