Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Future claims as the target of a dissenting creditor's claim-purchase right
Supreme Court, Jan. 31, 2019, 2016Da215127 (judgment)
Case name: 매매대금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 20 of the former Corporate Structure Promotion Act, may a dissenting creditor exercise the claim-purchase right over a claim that will arise in the future and whose amount is not yet fixed, and does a judgment omit the required reasoning where the overall gist of the reasons shows how a party's contention was treated?
Holding
It may. The claim-purchase right under Article 20 of the former Corporate Structure Promotion Act is a formative right by which a sale of the claim is constituted by the dissenting creditor's unilateral declaration, so the sale arises between the dissenting and the consenting creditors whether or not the latter consent. A future claim may still be the object of that right where the right is identifiable now and its arising in the near future is reasonably expected, and the same applies where the amount is not yet fixed but a standard for fixing it by the date of performance has been set. A judgment does not omit reasoning merely because it contains no concrete, direct statement on a party's contention, if the overall gist of the reasons shows that the contention was accepted or rejected.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
장래 발생할 채권이라도 현재 그 권리의 특정이 가능하고 가까운 장래에 발생할 것임이 상당한 정도로 기대되는 경우에는 채권양도의 대상이 될 수 있으므로, 이러한 채권에 대해서도 채권매수청구권을 행사할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Even a claim that will arise in the future may become the subject of an assignment of claims where the right can be specified at present and there is a considerable degree of expectation that it will arise in the near future; accordingly, the claim for the purchase of claims may be exercised also with respect to such claims.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
채권액이 확정되어 있지 아니하더라도 이행기까지 이를 확정할 수 있는 기준이 설정되어 있다면 마찬가지로 볼 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where the amount of the claim is not determined, if a standard by which it can be determined by the time of performance has been established, it may be regarded in the same manner.
Factors
- 반대채권자의 일방적 의사표시로 채권에 관한 매매계약을 성립하게 하는 형성권이다
- 현재 그 권리의 특정이 가능하고 가까운 장래에 발생할 것임이 상당한 정도로 기대되는
- 채권액이 확정되어 있지 아니하더라도 이행기까지 이를 확정할 수 있는 기준이 설정되어 있다면 마찬가지로 볼 수 있다
- 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지에 비추어 그 주장을 인용하거나 배척하였음을 알 수 있는 정도라면
Unofficial English translation
• It is a formative right that brings about a sales contract regarding the claim by a unilateral manifestation of intention by the dissenting creditor
• Where the right can be specified at present and there is a considerable degree of expectation that it will arise in the near future
• Even where the amount of the claim is not determined, if a standard by which it can be determined by the time of performance has been established, it may be regarded in the same manner
• Where it can be known, in light of the overall import of the reasons for the judgment, that the assertion was accepted or rejected
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1991. 6. 25. 선고 88다카6358 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 88DaKa6358 decided June 25, 1991, etc.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1991. 6. 25. 선고 88다카6358 판결(공1991, 1993), 대법원 1997. 7. 25. 선고 95다21624 판결(공1997하, 2653) / [2] 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2009다88631 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How near must the future claim's arising be, and what kind of standard suffices to fix an unfixed amount by the date of performance?
A later Supreme Court decision defining how near the near future must be, or what an adequate standard for fixing the amount is, would require this entry to be read again. So would a record showing that the derivative contracts set no standard for fixing the settlement amount by maturity.
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How near must the future claim's arising be, and what kind of standard suffices to fix an unfixed amount by the date of performance?” vs Independent “How should the purchase price be adjusted if an anticipated claim does not arise or its amount differs from the initial estimate?”
The primary asks how near the future claim's arising must be and what fixing standard suffices, while the independent reading asks how the price should be adjusted if the claim does not arise.
장래 발생할 채권이라도 현재 그 권리의 특정이 가능하고 가까운 장래에 발생할 것임이 상당한 정도로 기대되는 경우에는 채권양도의 대상이 될 수 있으므로, 이러한 채권에 대해서도 채권매수청구권을 행사할 수 있다.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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 4 February 2016 (2014Na2033138), held that the purchase price payable under the plaintiff's exercise of the claim-purchase right should be calculated on the basis of the ○○ report, using a liquidation value recovery rate of 12.44% that reflected the order of priority among the claims. It did not expressly set out its reasoning on the plaintiff's contention that the △△ report contained errors in the valuation of tangible assets, so that a corrected recovery rate should be applied.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the rejection of that contention was included in the overall gist of the appellate reasons, so there was no omission, and that there was no misapprehension of the law on calculating the purchase price either. As to the grounds premised on a duty of the consenting creditors to let the plaintiff out of the derivative contracts, the Court held that they failed on their premise and so needed no further examination, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal in full.
Distinguishing conditions
- A future claim whose right is not identifiable at the time of exercise, or whose arising in the near future cannot reasonably be expected.
- A claim whose amount is unfixed and for which no standard for fixing it by the date of performance has been set.
- A judgment that expressly states its reasoning on the party's contention, since the omission test turns on whether the overall gist suffices only where no express statement appears.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the committee resolution against the date of the written request, since the request had to be made within seven days of the resolution and to state the type and number of the claims. Then match the particular contract against the two conditions for a future claim, and read the whole of the reasons below for a treatment of the plaintiff's contention before alleging an omission. Note also that the Court did not reach the alleged duty of cooperation, so that ground stands or falls on its own premise.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 기업구조조정 촉진법 제20조에서 정한 반대채권자의 채권매수청구권의 법적 성질(=형성권) 및 그 행사의 방법과 효력 / 장래 발생할 채권이 현재 특정이 가능하고 가까운 장래에 발생할 것임이 상당한 정도로 기대되는 경우, 채권매수청구권 행사의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극) 및 이는 채권액이 확정되어 있지 않으나 이행기까지 이를 확정할 수 있는 기준이 설정되어 있는 경우도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 법원의 판결에 당사자가 주장한 사항에 대한 구체적·직접적인 판단이 표시되어 있지 않더라도 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지로 그 주장의 인용 여부를 알 수 있는 경우, 판단누락이 있다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The legal nature (=formative right) of the dissenting creditor's claim for the purchase of claims under former Article 20 of the Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act, and the method and effect of its exercise / Whether a claim that will arise in the future may be the subject of the exercise of the claim for the purchase of claims where the right can be specified at present and there is a considerable degree of expectation that it will arise in the near future (affirmative), and whether the same applies where the amount of the claim is not yet determined but a standard by which it can be determined by the time of performance has been established (affirmative) [2] Whether a failure to render a decision may be found even where no specific and direct determination of a matter asserted by a party is indicated in the judgment, but it can be known from the overall import of the reasons for the judgment whether that assertion was accepted (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 기업구조조정 촉진법(2011. 5. 19. 법률 제10684호, 실효) 제20조에 규정된 반대채권자의 채권매수청구권은 반대채권자의 일방적 의사표시로 채권에 관한 매매계약을 성립하게 하는 형성권이다. 따라서 반대채권자가 채권금융기관협의회의 의결일부터 7일 이내에 찬성채권자에 대하여 채권의 종류와 수를 기재한 서면으로 자신의 채권을 매수하도록 청구하면, 찬성채권자의 승낙 여부와 관계없이 반대채권자와 찬성채권자 사이에 채권에 관한 매매계약이 성립한다. 장래 발생할 채권이라도 현재 그 권리의 특정이 가능하고 가까운 장래에 발생할 것임이 상당한 정도로 기대되는 경우에는 채권양도의 대상이 될 수 있으므로, 이러한 채권에 대해서도 채권매수청구권을 행사할 수 있다. 또한 채권액이 확정되어 있지 아니하더라도 이행기까지 이를 확정할 수 있는 기준이 설정되어 있다면 마찬가지로 볼 수 있다. [2] 판결서의 이유에는 주문이 정당하다는 것을 인정할 수 있을 정도로 당사자의 주장, 그 밖의 공격·방어방법에 관한 판단을 표시하면 되고 당사자의 모든 주장이나 공격·방어방법에 관하여 판단할 필요가 없다(민사소송법 제208조). 따라서 법원의 판결에 당사자가 주장한 사항에 대한 구체적·직접적인 판단이 표시되어 있지 않더라도 판결 이유의 전반적인 취지에 비추어 그 주장을 인용하거나 배척하였음을 알 수 있는 정도라면 판단누락이라고 할 수 없다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 기업구조조정 촉진법(2011. 5. 19. 법률 제10684호, 실효) 제20조 [2] 민사소송법 제208조, 제423조
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