Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
A price-settlement deposit as a public interest claim in rehabilitation
Supreme Court, Jan. 14, 2021, 2018Da255143 (judgment)
Case name: 보증금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a distributor paid a supplier a deposit to settle the price of goods under a dealership agreement, and the supplier entered rehabilitation proceedings, is the distributor's claim for the return of the deposit a public interest claim under Article 179(1)(vii) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act because it is linked with the price claim as a mutual security?
Holding
It is. A bilateral contract within Article 119(1) is one in which both parties owe obligations in a relation of exchange, connected in their formation, performance and existence so that they secure each other. Where the contract wording shows that the deposit is applied to the payment of the price without any separate declaration of intent once the conditions set in the contract are met, the deposit has the character of an advance payment on the price, so the return claim and the supplier's price claim secure each other, and the return claim is a public interest claim under Article 179(1)(vii). The Court dismissed the supplier's appeal.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 갑 회사의 을 회사에 대한 보증금반환채권은 을 회사의 갑 회사에 대한 물품대금채권과 이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능한다고 볼 수 있으므로, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제7호에서 정한 공익채권에 해당한다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, as Company A's claim against Company B for return of the deposit, in its performance and continuation, has correlativity with Company B's claim against Company A for the price of the goods and may be regarded as functioning as mutual security, the judgment of the court below, which held that it falls under the common benefit claim provided in Article 179 (1) 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, was just.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
채무자회생법 제119조 제1항에서 정한 쌍무계약은 양쪽 당사자가 서로 대가관계에 있는 채무를 부담하는 계약으로, 양쪽 당사자의 채무 사이에 성립·이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능하는 것을 가리킨다.
Unofficial English translation
A bilateral contract as used in Article 119 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a contract under which both parties bear obligations standing in a relationship of counter-value to each other, where the obligations of both parties, in their formation, performance, and continuation, have correlativity and may be regarded as functioning as mutual security.
Factors
- 별도 의사표시 없이 물품대금 지급에 충당되므로
- 위 보증금은 물품대금에 대한 선급금의 성격을 가지고
- 갑 회사의 을 회사에 대한 보증금반환채권은 을 회사의 갑 회사에 대한 물품대금채권과 이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능한다고 볼 수 있으므로
- 양쪽 당사자의 채무 사이에 성립·이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능하는 것을 가리킨다
Unofficial English translation
• in the absence of any separate manifestation of intent, it is applied to the payment of the price of the goods
• the above deposit has the character of an advance payment in respect of the price of the goods
• as Company A's claim against Company B for return of the deposit, in its performance and continuation, has correlativity with Company B's claim against Company A for the price of the goods and may be regarded as functioning as mutual security
• it refers to a case where the obligations of both parties, in their formation, performance, and continuation, have correlativity and may be regarded as functioning as mutual security
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
채무자회생법 제119조 제1항에서 정한 쌍무계약은 양쪽 당사자가 서로 대가관계에 있는 채무를 부담하는 계약으로, 양쪽 당사자의 채무 사이에 성립·이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능하는 것을 가리킨다.
Unofficial English translation
A bilateral contract as used in Article 119 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a contract under which both parties bear obligations standing in a relationship of counter-value to each other, where the obligations of both parties, in their formation, performance, and continuation, have correlativity and may be regarded as functioning as mutual security.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a deposit also secures claims other than the price claim, such as damages for defective delivery, does the return claim still stand in a mutual-security relationship with the supplier's price claim?
A later decision treating a price-settlement deposit as a pure surety rather than an advance payment would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 119(1) or Article 179(1)(vii) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and a case in which the administrator terminates the contract instead of performing the debtor's obligation.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary sets out the general elements of a bilateral contract and then checks them against the contract, while the independent reading focuses on applying the contract terms to this deposit. Both elements appear in the holding, so each reading emphasizes a different part.
공익채권에 해당한다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the holding as setting out a new framing of the bilateral-contract and mutual-security test, while the independent reading could not confirm a precedent relationship from the text.
채무자회생법 제119조 제1항에서 정한 쌍무계약은 양쪽 당사자가 서로 대가관계에 있는 채무를 부담하는 계약으로, 양쪽 당사자의 채무 사이에 성립·이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능하는 것을 가리킨다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a deposit also secures claims other than the price claim, such as damages for defective delivery, does the return claim still stand in a mutual-security relationship with the supplier's price claim?” vs Independent “Would a refundable deposit serving solely as security, without automatic application to the price, likewise qualify as a common-benefit claim?”
The primary asks whether the return claim keeps its mutual-security link when the deposit also secures non-price claims such as defect damages. The independent reading asks whether a deposit serving only as security, without automatic application to the price, qualifies. Both concern the limits of the link but test different types of deposit.
따라서 갑 회사의 을 회사에 대한 보증금반환채권은 을 회사의 갑 회사에 대한 물품대금채권과 이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능한다고 볼 수 있으므로, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제7호에서 정한 공익채권에 해당한다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 3 July 2018 (2017Na35891), held that Article 4 of the agreement let Company A order goods within the range of the deposit, required the price of goods ordered above that range to be paid in first before they could be ordered, and provided that where Company A fell into arrears of the product price for more than 30 days of its own will without prior written consent, Company B would satisfy the total outstanding amount in priority from the deposit, while Article 10(2) made damage to the other party caused by violating the provisions of the agreement and exceeding the deposit a ground for termination. On those terms the deposit was applied to the payment of the price without any separate declaration of intent, so it had the character of an advance payment, and the return claim was linked with the price claim as a mutual security, which made it a public interest claim under Article 179(1)(vii). The court below accepted the claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons of the judgment below against the law it had set out, it held that the court below had not departed from the limits of free evaluation contrary to the rules of logic and experience and had not misread the law on public interest claims in rehabilitation proceedings. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal and put the costs on the losing defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A contract that the administrator terminates or rescinds under Article 119(1) instead of performing the debtor's obligation, since Article 179(1)(vii) covers a claim arising when the administrator performs the debtor's obligation.
- A deposit agreed to be returned on a separate declaration of intent rather than applied to the payment of the price by itself, so that it lacks the character of an advance payment on the price.
- Obligations on both sides with no link in formation, performance or existence, so that they do not function as each other's security.
Record verification notes
Set the contract wording against the points the Court relied on: whether the deposit is applied to the price by itself, whether the supplier satisfies arrears from it where the price is over 30 days in arrears of the buyer's own will without prior written consent, and whether it is returned within ten days of termination. Then confirm from the record that both parties' obligations were still incomplete when the rehabilitation proceedings began on 3 November 2014, and that the manager agreed on 5 December 2014 to keep supplying the goods. Note that the decision cites no earlier decision, so it rests on its own statement of the meaning of a bilateral contract.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항에서 정한 ‘쌍무계약’의 의미 [2] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사와 물품공급계약을 체결하면서 을 회사에 물품대금 정산을 위한 보증금을 지급하였고, 그 후 을 회사에 대하여 회생절차가 개시되어 관리인이 갑 회사와 물품을 계속 공급하기로 협의하였는데, 계약기간이 만료한 후 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 보증금 반환을 구한 사안에서, 갑 회사의 보증금반환채권은 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제7호에서 정한 공익채권에 해당한다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of the term 'bilateral contract' as used in Article 119 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act [2] A case in which Company A (a stock company) entered into a goods supply contract with Company B (a stock company) and paid Company B a deposit for the settlement of the price of the goods; rehabilitation proceedings were subsequently commenced against Company B, and the custodian consulted with Company A to continue supplying goods; after the term of the contract expired, Company A filed an action against Company B seeking return of the deposit, and the case held that the judgment of the court below, which held that Company A's claim for return of the deposit falls under the common benefit claim provided in Article 179 (1) 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, was just
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제119조 제1항 본문은 “쌍무계약에 관하여 채무자와 그 상대방이 모두 회생절차개시 당시에 아직 그 이행을 완료하지 아니한 때에는 관리인은 계약을 해제 또는 해지하거나 채무자의 채무를 이행하고 상대방의 채무이행을 청구할 수 있다.”라고 정하고 있다. 채무자회생법 제179조 제1항은 제7호에서 ‘제119조 제1항의 규정에 의하여 관리인이 채무의 이행을 하는 때에 상대방이 갖는 청구권’을 공익채권으로 정하고 있다. 채무자회생법 제119조 제1항에서 정한 쌍무계약은 양쪽 당사자가 서로 대가관계에 있는 채무를 부담하는 계약으로, 양쪽 당사자의 채무 사이에 성립·이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능하는 것을 가리킨다. [2] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사와 물품공급계약을 체결하면서 을 회사에 물품대금 정산을 위한 보증금을 지급하였고, 그 후 을 회사에 대하여 회생절차가 개시되어 관리인이 갑 회사와 물품을 계속 공급하기로 협의하였는데, 계약기간이 만료한 후 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 보증금 반환을 구한 사안에서, 계약서의 문언에 비추어 갑 회사가 을 회사에 지급한 보증금은 계약에서 정한 요건이 충족되는 경우 별도 의사표시 없이 물품대금 지급에 충당되므로, 위 보증금은 물품대금에 대한 선급금의 성격을 가지고, 따라서 갑 회사의 을 회사에 대한 보증금반환채권은 을 회사의 갑 회사에 대한 물품대금채권과 이행·존속상 견련성을 갖고 있어서 서로 담보로서 기능한다고 볼 수 있으므로, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제7호에서 정한 공익채권에 해당한다고 본 원심판결이 정당하다고 한 사례.
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
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항, 제179조 제1항 제7호 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항, 제179조 제1항 제7호
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