Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Requirements for an act of repaying a specific debt with funds borrowed from a third party to be excluded from the acts subject to avoidance in rehabilitation proceedings
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 12, 2018, 2016Da247209 (judgment)
Case name: 부인결정에대한이의
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under what circumstances does an act by which the debtor repays a specific creditor with funds borrowed from a third party not prejudice rehabilitation claim holders and the like, and therefore not become subject to avoidance?
Holding
Where the third party and the debtor agreed that the borrowed funds would be used to extinguish a specific debt and repayment was in fact made accordingly, where in substance the repayment was made with those borrowed funds, and where, in light of the terms of the borrowing and the like, the debtor's assets are evaluated not to have decreased after the repayment, the act is not subject to avoidance. That agreement may also be made impliedly, and the Supreme Court affirmed the court below, which held that an act of repaying a loan with advance payments received from an affiliate could not be avoided.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위와 같은 제3자와 채무자의 약정은 반드시 명시적으로 행하여질 필요는 없고 묵시적으로도 이루어질 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The agreement between the third party and the debtor as described above need not necessarily be made expressly and may also be made impliedly.
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
해당 변제 등 채무소멸행위는 전체적으로 보아 회생채권자 등을 해하지 아니하여 부인의 대상이 되지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
The act extinguishing the obligation, such as the payment in question, does not, when viewed in its entirety, harm rehabilitation claim holders or the like and therefore does not become subject to avoidance.
Factors
- 제3자와 채무자가 차입금을 특정 채무를 소멸시키는 데에 사용하기로 약정하고
- 실제 그와 같은 약정에 따라 특정 채무에 대한 변제 등이 이루어졌으며
- 실질적으로 특정 채무의 변제 등이 당해 차입금에 의하여 이루어진 것이라고 볼 수 있고
- 차입 이전과 비교할 때 변제 등 채무소멸이 이루어진 이후에 채무자 재산이 감소되지 아니한 것으로 평가될 수 있다면
- 일체로 이루어진 행위의 유해성은 행위 전체가 회생채권자 등에게 미치는 영향을 두고 판단되어야 하기 때문이다
Unofficial English translation
• the third party and the debtor agreed to use the borrowed funds to extinguish a specific obligation, and
• payment or the like was in fact made in respect of the specific obligation in accordance with such agreement, and
• it can be regarded that the payment or the like in respect of the specific obligation was substantively made by the borrowed funds, and
• if, when compared with the state before the borrowing, the debtor's assets can be evaluated as not having decreased after the payment or the like extinguished the obligation, and
• because the harmfulness of the acts taken in their entirety must be determined in light of the effect that the entire act has on rehabilitation claim holders or the like
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2009다75291 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da75291 decided May 13, 2011
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 9. 24. 선고 2001다39473 판결(공2002하, 2503), 대법원 2007. 7. 13. 선고 2005다71710 판결(공2007하, 1264), 대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2009다75291 판결(공2011상, 1125), 대법원 2016. 1. 14. 선고 2014다18131 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a maturity date and an interest rate are set for the borrowed funds and the debtor's burden is similar before and after the repayment, what is the criterion on which it may be evaluated that the assets did not decrease?
This reading will be checked again if the provisions of Article 100 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act on acts subject to avoidance are amended, or if subsequent decisions addressing the relationship between repayment of borrowed funds and the right of avoidance change the standard.
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 another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a maturity date and an interest rate are set for the borrowed funds and the debtor's burden is similar before and after the repayment, what is the criterion on which it may be evaluated that the assets did not decrease?” vs Independent “Under what specific circumstances is an implied agreement on the use of the borrowed funds recognized?”
The first reading asks for the criterion on which it may be evaluated that the assets did not decrease before and after the repayment, while the independent reading asks about the circumstances for recognizing an implied agreement on the use of the funds.
위와 같은 제3자와 채무자의 약정은 반드시 명시적으로 행하여질 필요는 없고 묵시적으로도 이루어질 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 court below (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2038079) rejected the assertion of the defendant, the trustee, that the act by which Dongyang International repaid its loan debt to the plaintiff with the advance payments it had received from Dongyang Cement constituted an act subject to avoidance under Article 100 (1) 1 and 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found, in light of the time and circumstances of the repayment, whereby approximately 4,877,527,123 won out of the advance payments deposited at approximately 18:00 on September 27, 2013 was applied to repay the loan at approximately 20:10; the motive of financial support made pursuant to the instructions of the group's strategic planning division; and the fact that no maturity date or interest rate was set for the advance payments, that there was an implied agreement to use part of the advance payments to repay the loan and that there was no decrease in assets after the repayment. Holding that this act of repayment, taken as a whole, did not prejudice rehabilitation claim holders and the like, the Supreme Court accepted the determination of the court below and dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where there is no agreement on the use of the borrowed funds, and no connection in timing or circumstances, between the borrowing and the repayment, so that it is difficult to find that the repayment was made with those borrowed funds
- Where the terms of the new borrowing are less favorable than the existing debt in terms of interest, maturity, and security, so that the debtor's assets are evaluated to have decreased after the repayment
- Where the debtor, without borrowing and solely out of its general assets, made a preferential payment to a specific creditor only
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it needs to be checked whether there are fund flows and circumstances of instructions supporting an agreement on the use of the funds between the provider of the borrowed funds and the debtor, and whether the terms of the borrowing are no less favorable than the existing debt.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자가 제3자로부터 자금을 차입하여 변제 등 특정 채무를 소멸시키는 행위가 전체적으로 보아 회생채권자 등을 해하지 아니하여 부인의 대상이 되지 않는 경우 및 이때 차입금을 특정 채무를 소멸시키는 데에 사용하기로 하는 제3자와 채무자의 약정이 묵시적으로 이루어질 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether an act whereby a debtor borrows funds from a third party and extinguishes a specific obligation, such as by payment, does not, when viewed in its entirety, harm rehabilitation claim holders or the like and therefore does not become subject to avoidance, and whether an agreement between the third party and the debtor to use the borrowed funds to extinguish a specific obligation may be impliedly made (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 각호는 관리인이 회생절차개시 이후 채무자의 재산을 위하여 부인할 수 있는 행위를 네 가지 유형으로 나누어 규정하고 있다. 이러한 네 가지 유형은 모두 공통적으로 ‘회생채권자 또는 회생담보권자(이하 ‘회생채권자 등’이라고 한다)를 해하는 행위’일 것, 즉 행위의 유해성을 부인권 행사의 요건으로 하고 있다. 여기서 ‘회생채권자 등을 해하는 행위'에는 채무자의 일반재산을 절대적으로 감소시키는 사해행위 외에 채권자 간의 평등을 저해하는 편파행위도 포함되므로, 채무자가 제3자로부터 자금을 차입하여 특정 채권자에게만 변제를 한 경우 그 변제는 다른 채권자와의 평등을 해하는 것으로서 원칙적으로 부인의 대상이 된다. 한편 일체로 이루어진 행위는 전체를 통틀어 판단할 때 회생채권자 등에게 불이익을 주는 것이 아니라면 개별약정만을 따로 분리하여 그것만을 가지고 유해성이 있다고 판단하여서는 안 된다. 일체로 이루어진 행위의 유해성은 행위 전체가 회생채권자 등에게 미치는 영향을 두고 판단되어야 하기 때문이다. 따라서 채무자가 제3자로부터 자금을 차입하여 변제 등 특정 채무를 소멸시키는 경우, 제3자와 채무자가 차입금을 특정 채무를 소멸시키는 데에 사용하기로 약정하고, 실제 그와 같은 약정에 따라 특정 채무에 대한 변제 등이 이루어졌으며, 차입과 변제 등이 이루어진 시기와 경위, 방법 등 제반 사정에 비추어 실질적으로 특정 채무의 변제 등이 당해 차입금에 의하여 이루어진 것이라고 볼 수 있고, 이자, 변제기, 담보제공 여부 등 차입 조건이나 차입금을 제공하는 제3자와 채무자의 관계 등에 비추어 차입 이전과 비교할 때 변제 등 채무소멸이 이루어진 이후에 채무자 재산이 감소되지 아니한 것으로 평가될 수 있다면, 해당 변제 등 채무소멸행위는 전체적으로 보아 회생채권자 등을 해하지 아니하여 부인의 대상이 되지 아니한다. 위와 같은 제3자와 채무자의 약정은 반드시 명시적으로 행하여질 필요는 없고 묵시적으로도 이루어질 수 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항
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