Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Subjective Requirements of Intentional Avoidance of Preferential Acts in Rehabilitation Proceedings and the Burden of Proof as to Appropriateness and Good Faith
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, June 25, 2020, 2016Da257572 (judgment)
Case name: 부인의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In rehabilitation proceedings, in order to intentionally avoid a preferential act, must the debtor have an affirmative intent to prejudice rehabilitation claimants, and may the transferee's good faith be determined solely on the basis of awareness of insolvency?
Holding
Intentional avoidance of a preferential act requires only the recognition that one is making payment to a particular creditor in circumvention of the principle of equal treatment of creditors; an affirmative intent to cause harm is not required. Both the circumstance that the requirement of wrongfulness is vitiated by the appropriateness of the act and the transferee's good faith must be proven by the transferee, and the presence or absence of the transferee's awareness of the state of insolvency must not be taken as the principal basis for recognizing good faith.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
‘특정 채권자에게 변제한다는 인식’이 필요하지만, 더 나아가 회생채권자 등에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사나 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
'An awareness of payment being made to a specific creditor' is required, but, going further, an intent or desire to actively harm the rehabilitation claimholders, etc. is not required.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
고의부인이 인정되기 위해서는 주관적 요건으로서 ‘회사가 회생채권자들을 해함을 알 것’을 필요로 하는데
Unofficial English translation
For intentional avoidance to be recognized, the subjective requirement of 'knowing that the company harms the rehabilitation claimholders' is necessary,
Factors
- 회생회사의 재산 및 영업 상태, 행위의 목적·의도와 동기 등 회생회사의 주관적 상태
- 변제자금의 원천, 회생회사와 채권자와의 관계
- 채권자가 회생회사와 통모하거나 회생회사에게 변제를 강요하는 등의 영향력을 행사하였는지 여부
- 채무초과 상태에 있었는지에 대한 수익자의 인식 여부를 선의 인정의 주된 근거로 삼아서는 안 된다
Unofficial English translation
• the subjective state of the rehabilitation company, such as the state of the company's property and business, and the purpose, intent and motive of the act
• the source of the funds used for payment, and the relationship between the rehabilitation company and the creditor
• whether the creditor colluded with the rehabilitation company or exercised influence, such as by coercing the rehabilitation company into making payment
• the beneficiary's awareness of whether the debtor was in a state of excess liabilities must not be taken as the principal ground for recognizing good faith
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011다56637, 56644 판결(공2011하, 2351)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da56637, 56644 decided October 13, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 2351)
Decisions referred to
[1][2][3] 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011다56637, 56644 판결(공2011하, 2351), 대법원 2014. 7. 10. 선고 2014다24112 판결 / [1][2] 대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003다65049 판결(공2004상, 723) / [1][3] 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2003다271 판결(공2005하, 1925), 대법원 2016. 1. 14. 선고 2014다18131 판결 / [1] 대법원 2006. 6. 15. 선고 2004다46519 판결(공2006하, 1314) / [2][3] 대법원 2011. 5. 13. 선고 2009다75291 판결(공2011상, 1125) / [2] 대법원 2007. 9. 21. 선고 2005다22398 판결
Burden of proof
The opposing party Stated in the decision
그와 같은 부당성의 요건을 흠결하였다는 사정에 대한 주장·증명책임은 상대방인 수익자에게 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The burden of alleging and proving the circumstance that such requirement of impropriety was lacking rests on the counterparty, i.e., the beneficiary.
Open question and revisit condition
Where a creditor that had granted repeated deferrals of the payment deadline received partial payment pursuant to a repayment plan adopted by a board resolution, what further circumstances must be added before the appropriateness of the act may be recognized?
This reading will be checked again if the legal principle concerning the requirements for intentional avoidance under Article 100 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or the presumption of bad faith on the part of a transferee changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison 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 “Where a creditor that had granted repeated deferrals of the payment deadline received partial payment pursuant to a repayment plan adopted by a board resolution, what further circumstances must be added before the appropriateness of the act may be recognized?” vs Independent “Beyond awareness of insolvency, what concrete circumstances must be proven, and to what degree, before the transferee's good faith may be recognized?”
The first reading asks about the conditions for recognizing the appropriateness of payment made following deferrals and a repayment plan, while the independent reading asks about the concrete circumstances and degree of proof required to recognize the transferee's good faith.
‘특정 채권자에게 변제한다는 인식’이 필요하지만, 더 나아가 회생채권자 등에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사나 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다.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 upheld the first-instance determination rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the debtor company had completely abandoned this business, and also upheld the first-instance determination that the acts of payment made to the defendant on December 24, 2012 and January 22, 2013 were socially necessary and appropriate, or inevitable, acts, and that the debtor company had no intent to harm. It further maintained the first-instance determination as it was, which accepted the defendant's defense of being a transferee in good faith on the principal basis of whether the defendant was aware, at the time of payment, that the debtor company was in a state of insolvency.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the determination regarding the assertion of abandonment of the business to be acceptable. However, it held that, in a situation involving a downgrade of the corporate paper rating, unpaid wages, liabilities exceeding assets, and a shortage of cash-equivalent assets, an act of paying a substantial portion of available cash to a particular creditor is difficult to recognize as appropriate, and there is ample room to find that there was the recognition that payment was being made to a particular creditor. Holding also that recognizing good faith on the principal basis of the presence or absence of awareness of insolvency constituted a misapprehension of the legal principle, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below, and dismissed all applications for succession to the litigation proceedings filed after the period for submitting the grounds for final appeal had expired.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the act of payment was absolutely necessary for the continuation of the business and is recognized as socially appropriate or inevitable in light of the source of the payment funds and the relationship with the creditor
- Where the transferee proves, on the basis of concrete circumstances other than awareness of insolvency, that at the time of the act the transferee did not know the fact that the act prejudiced rehabilitation claimants
- Where the payment was made in exchange for a new performance at the same time and thus cannot be regarded as an act prejudicing rehabilitation claimants
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one checks the debtor's cash flow and arrears situation at the time of payment, the source of the payment funds, and how the transferee had ascertained the debtor's financial situation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 부인의 대상으로 되는 행위인 ‘채무자가 회생채권자 또는 회생담보권자를 해하는 것을 알고 한 행위’에 이른바 편파행위도 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 편파행위에 대한 고의부인이 인정되기 위하여 요구되는 주관적 요건의 내용 [2] 회생절차상 부인의 대상이 되는 행위가 다른 회생채권자 등에게 유해하지만 상당성이 인정되는 경우, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항에서 정한 부인권 행사의 대상이 되는지 여부(소극) / ‘행위의 상당성’이 있는지 판단하는 기준 및 이때 부당성 요건을 흠결하였다는 사정에 대한 주장·증명책임의 소재(=수익자) [3] 부인의 대상이 되는 행위 당시 수익자가 회생채권자 등을 해하는 사실을 알지 못하였는지에 대한 증명책임의 소재(=수익자) / 부인의 대상이 되는 행위 당시 채무자가 채무초과 상태에 있어야만 부인권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 편파행위 당시 채무자가 채무초과 상태에 있었는지에 대한 수익자의 인식 여부가 선의 인정의 주된 근거가 될 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether so-called preferential acts are included in the 'act done by the debtor with knowledge that it harms the rehabilitation claimholders or the holders of rehabilitation security rights' as provided in Article 100, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which is subject to avoidance (affirmative), and the content of the subjective requirement demanded for intentional avoidance of a preferential act to be recognized [2] Whether an act subject to avoidance in rehabilitation proceedings that is detrimental to other rehabilitation claimholders, etc. but whose appropriateness is recognized falls within the subject of the exercise of the right of avoidance provided in Article 100, paragraph (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (negative) / the criteria for determining whether there is 'appropriateness of the act', and where the burden of alleging and proving the circumstance that the requirement of impropriety was lacking lies (= the beneficiary) [3] Where the burden of proof lies as to whether the beneficiary was unaware of the fact that it harmed the rehabilitation claimholders, etc. at the time of the act subject to avoidance (= the beneficiary) / whether the debtor must be in a state of excess liabilities at the time of the act subject to avoidance in order to exercise the right of avoidance (negative), and whether the beneficiary's awareness of whether the debtor was in a state of excess liabilities at the time of the preferential act may serve as the principal ground for recognizing good faith (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제100조 제1항 제1호에서 정한 ‘채무자가 회생채권자 또는 회생담보권자를 해하는 것을 알고 한 행위’에는 총채권자의 공동담보가 되는 회사의 일반재산을 절대적으로 감소시키는 이른바 사해행위뿐만 아니라 특정한 채권자에 대한 변제와 같이 다른 회생채권자들과의 공평에 반하는 이른바 편파행위도 포함된다. 위와 같은 고의부인이 인정되기 위해서는 주관적 요건으로서 ‘회사가 회생채권자들을 해함을 알 것’을 필요로 하는데, 특히 편파행위의 경우에는 채무자회생법이 정한 부인대상행위 유형화의 취지를 몰각시키는 것을 방지하고 거래 안전과의 균형을 도모하기 위해 회생절차가 개시되는 경우에 적용되는 채권자평등의 원칙을 회피하기 위하여 ‘특정 채권자에게 변제한다는 인식’이 필요하지만, 더 나아가 회생채권자 등에 대한 적극적인 가해의 의사나 의욕까지 필요한 것은 아니다. [2] 회생절차상 부인의 대상이 되는 행위가 회생채권자 등에게 유해하다고 하더라도 행위 당시의 개별적·구체적 사정에 따라서는 당해 행위가 사회적으로 필요하고 상당하였다거나 불가피하였다고 인정되어 회생채권자 등이 회생회사 재산의 감소나 불공평을 감수하여야 한다고 볼 수 있는 경우가 있을 수 있고, 그와 같은 예외적인 경우에는 채권자평등, 채무자의 보호와 이해관계의 조정이라는 법의 지도이념이나 정의관념에 비추어 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항에서 정한 부인권 행사의 대상이 될 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 여기에서 ‘행위의 상당성’ 여부는 행위 당시의 회생회사의 재산 및 영업 상태, 행위의 목적·의도와 동기 등 회생회사의 주관적 상태를 고려함은 물론, 변제행위에 있어서는 변제자금의 원천, 회생회사와 채권자와의 관계, 채권자가 회생회사와 통모하거나 회생회사에게 변제를 강요하는 등의 영향력을 행사하였는지 여부 등을 기준으로 하여 신의칙과 공평의 이념에 비추어 구체적으로 판단하여야 한다. 그리고 그와 같은 부당성의 요건을 흠결하였다는 사정에 대한 주장·증명책임은 상대방인 수익자에게 있다. [3] 채무자가 회생채권자를 해하는 것을 알고 한 행위로 이익을 받은 자(이하 ‘수익자’라고 한다)가 그 행위 당시 회생채권자 등을 해하는 사실을 알지 못한 경우에는 행위를 부인할 수 없으나, 수익자의 악의는 추정되므로, 수익자 자신이 선의에 대한 증명책임을 부담한다. 채무자의 일반재산의 유지·확보를 주된 목적으로 하는 채권자취소권의 경우와 달리, 이른바 편파행위까지 규제 대상으로 하는 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률의 부인권 제도에 있어서는 반드시 해당 행위 당시 부채의 총액이 자산의 총액을 초과하는 상태에 있어야만 부인권을 행사할 수 있다고 볼 필요가 없으므로, 편파행위 당시 채무자가 채무초과 상태에 있었는지에 대한 수익자의 인식 여부를 선의 인정의 주된 근거로 삼아서는 안 된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 소송절차수계신청인들의 소송절차수계신청을 모두 기각한다. 소송절차수계신청으로 인한 비용은 소송절차수계신청인들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All applications for continuation of litigation proceedings by the applicants for continuation of litigation proceedings are dismissed. The costs incurred by the applications for continuation of litigation proceedings shall be borne by the applicants for continuation of litigation proceedings.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제1호 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항, 민법 제2조, 민사소송법 제288조 [3] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제100조 제1항 제1호, 민사소송법 제288조, 민법 제406조 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