Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Security for a loan used to repay old debt
Supreme Court, Jan. 14, 2022, 2018Da295103 (judgment)
Case name: 사해행위취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a debtor whose assets cannot pay the whole debt gives property to one creditor as in-kind satisfaction or as security, is that a fraudulent act as against the other creditors even if the property is not the only asset or is worth less than the claim, and does the answer change where security was given merely to defer an existing debt without new funds?
Holding
In principle, yes. Where the debtor's assets cannot satisfy the whole debt, property given to one creditor as in-kind satisfaction or as security harms the other creditors and is a fraudulent act against them, even if it is not the debtor's only asset or is worth less than the claim. A debtor who, in financial distress, gave security to a creditor and actually obtained new funds believing that raising money to continue the business was the best way to restore solvency may have committed no such act; but giving security to one creditor merely to defer an existing debt, without new funds, remains a fraudulent act against the other creditors even where the debtor meant to revive or continue the business. Here the assignment of care-benefit claims of KRW 3 billion was such an act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
채무자의 재산이 채무의 전부를 변제하기에 부족한 경우에 채무자가 그의 재산을 어느 특정 채권자에게 대물변제나 담보조로 제공하였다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이는 곧 다른 채권자의 이익을 해하는 것으로서 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 사해행위가 되는 것이고, 위와 같이 대물변제나 담보조로 제공된 재산이 채무자의 유일한 재산이 아니라거나 그 가치가 채권액에 미달한다고 하여도 마찬가지이다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the debtor's property is insufficient to discharge the whole of the debts, if the debtor provided his property to a specific creditor as payment in kind or as security, then, absent special circumstances, this in itself harms the interests of the other creditors and constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors, and the same holds true even where the property provided as payment in kind or as security as described above is not the debtor's sole property or its value falls short of the amount of the claim.
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
신규자금의 융통 없이 단지 기존채무의 이행을 유예받기 위하여 자신의 채권자 중 한 사람에게 담보를 제공하는 행위는 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서는 사해행위에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Providing security to one of one's creditors merely to obtain a deferment of performance of existing debts, without raising new funds, constitutes, absent other special circumstances, a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors.
Factors
- 갑은 기존 대출금 채무를 변제하기 위해서 대출을 받고 담보로 채권양도를 하였던 것으로 보일 뿐
- 위 대출과 채권양도가 신규자금 유입을 통한 갑의 변제능력 향상에 기여하였다고 볼 근거는 없는 점
- 그 기간 동안 갑의 다른 일반채권자들은 요양급여채권에 대한 강제집행이 사실상 배제되어 이를 통한 채권만족이 어려워지는 점
Unofficial English translation
• A appears merely to have received the loan in order to discharge the existing loan debt and to have assigned the claims as security
• there is no basis for finding that the said loan and assignment of claims contributed to improving A's ability to discharge debts through an inflow of new funds
• during that period, A's other general creditors were effectively precluded from compulsory execution against the claims for medical care benefits, making it difficult to obtain satisfaction of their claims through those claims
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2007다18218 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218 decided July 12, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2007다18218 판결 / [2] 대법원 2001. 5. 8. 선고 2000다50015 판결(공2001하, 1340), 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2009다104564 판결(공2010상, 1009)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How large must the assigned care-benefit claim be before it is an excessive amount that leaves the other ordinary creditors unable to obtain satisfaction for a considerable period?
A later decision on when a medical institution operator's assignment of care-benefit claims stays within a reasonable range, or on when a bank's bad faith is presumed, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act on the setting aside of fraudulent acts, or a change in the law on the scope of value compensation and the method of restoration.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
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 large must the assigned care-benefit claim be before it is an excessive amount that leaves the other ordinary creditors unable to obtain satisfaction for a considerable period?” vs Independent “How much improvement in repayment capacity would justify the exception where a secured loan funds both existing debt repayment and continued business operations?”
The primary asks what amount of assigned claims becomes excessive enough to block other creditors, while the independent asks what degree of improved repayment capacity would support the new funds exception.
채무자의 재산이 채무의 전부를 변제하기에 부족한 경우에 채무자가 그의 재산을 어느 특정 채권자에게 대물변제나 담보조로 제공하였다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이는 곧 다른 채권자의 이익을 해하는 것으로서 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 사해행위가 되는 것이고, 위와 같이 대물변제나 담보조로 제공된 재산이 채무자의 유일한 재산이 아니라거나 그 가치가 채권액에 미달한다고 하여도 마찬가지이다.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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 7 November 2018 (2017Na58932), found that the operator of a Korean medicine hospital was insolvent when it borrowed KRW 100 million from the savings bank defendant on 8 September 2015 and assigned to that bank its present or future care-benefit claims against the National Health Insurance Service in the sum of KRW 3 billion as security, using a substantial part of the loan to repay an existing loan debt of about KRW 100 million to another savings bank. It held the assignment to be a fraudulent act harming the operator's other ordinary creditors and ordered the bank to pay KRW 633,822,350 as value compensation for the monies the Health Insurance Service had paid it up to 18 May 2017.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons and the lawfully admitted evidence, it agreed that the loan and the assignment showed no basis for thinking they improved the operator's ability to pay through new money, and that while the bank was paid in the operator's place until the care-benefit costs reached KRW 3 billion, the other ordinary creditors were in effect shut out of enforcing that claim, so the assignment deepened the insolvency and gave the bank alone a chance to recover ahead of them. It also agreed that the operator's intention to defraud was established and the bank's bad faith presumed, and that monies partly returned to the operator did not free the bank from value compensation, since it had not returned the assigned claim itself; the appeal was dismissed with the concurrence of all participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- Security given to a creditor with the purpose of reviving or continuing the business where new funds were in fact raised through it and improved the debtor's ability to pay.
- A medical institution operator's assignment of care-benefit claims as security within a reasonable range, taking account of the institution's ordinary funding position and practical needs.
- A debtor whose assets are enough to pay the whole debt, or a security transaction resting on special circumstances, since the rule applies only in their absence.
Record verification notes
Fix first which funds went where, since the Court relied on the loan's substantial part repaying an existing debt and on nothing showing new money reached the operator. Then compare the KRW 3 billion assigned with the care-benefit costs actually paid in, and count the months during which the other ordinary creditors could not enforce. Lastly check what part of the KRW 633,822,350 was returned to the operator, since that does not release the bank unless the assigned claim itself was returned.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무초과 상태의 채무자가 그의 재산을 특정 채권자에게 대물변제나 담보조로 제공한 경우, 사해행위에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 이는 대물변제나 담보조로 제공된 재산이 채무자의 유일한 재산이 아니거나 그 가치가 채권액에 미달하는 경우라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 자금난에 처한 채무자가 자금을 융통하여 사업을 계속 추진하는 것이 채무 변제력을 갖게 되는 최선의 방법이라고 생각하고 특정 채권자에게 담보를 제공하여 신규자금을 추가로 융통받은 경우, 담보권 설정행위가 사해행위에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 이 경우에도 신규자금의 융통 없이 단지 기존채무의 이행을 유예받기 위하여 채권자 중 한 사람에게 담보를 제공하는 것은 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 사해행위에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [3] 의료병원 운영자 갑이 채무초과 상태에서 을 저축은행으로부터 대출을 받으면서 담보로 국민건강보험공단에 대한 현재 또는 장래의 요양급여채권을 양도하고, 위 대출금의 상당 부분을 병 저축은행에 대한 기존 대출금 채무 변제에 사용한 사안에서, 위 채권양도는 갑의 채무초과 상태를 더욱 심화시키고 을 은행에 대해서만 다른 채권자에 우선하여 자신의 채권을 회수할 기회를 부여하는 것으로 볼 수 있으므로 사해행위에 해당한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a debtor in a state of insolvency provided his property to a specific creditor as payment in kind or as security, this constitutes a fraudulent act (affirmative in principle), and whether the same holds true even where the property provided as payment in kind or as security is not the debtor's sole property or its value falls short of the amount of the claim (affirmative) [2] Where a debtor in financial difficulty, thinking that raising funds and continuing to pursue the business was the best way to regain the ability to discharge debts, provided security to a specific creditor and thereby obtained additional new funds, whether the creation of the security interest constitutes a fraudulent act (negative), and whether, even in such a case, providing security to one of one's creditors merely to obtain a deferment of performance of existing debts, without raising new funds, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors (affirmative in principle) [3] In a case where A, the operator of a medical hospital, while in a state of insolvency, received a loan from B Savings Bank and, as security, assigned claims for current or future medical care benefits against the National Health Insurance Service, and used a considerable portion of the loan proceeds to discharge existing loan debt owed to C Savings Bank, it was held that the assignment of the claims may be regarded as further deepening A's state of insolvency and as granting B Bank alone the opportunity to recover its claims in priority to other creditors, and therefore constituted a fraudulent act
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자의 재산이 채무의 전부를 변제하기에 부족한 경우에 채무자가 그의 재산을 어느 특정 채권자에게 대물변제나 담보조로 제공하였다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이는 곧 다른 채권자의 이익을 해하는 것으로서 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 사해행위가 되는 것이고, 위와 같이 대물변제나 담보조로 제공된 재산이 채무자의 유일한 재산이 아니라거나 그 가치가 채권액에 미달한다고 하여도 마찬가지이다. [2] 자금난으로 사업을 계속 추진하기 어려운 상황에 처한 채무자가 자금을 융통하여 사업을 계속 추진하는 것이 채무 변제력을 갖게 되는 최선의 방법이라고 생각하고 자금을 융통하기 위하여 부득이 특정 채권자에게 담보를 제공하고 그로부터 신규자금을 추가로 융통받았다면 채무자의 담보권 설정행위는 사해행위에 해당하지 않을 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 경우에도 채무자에게 사업의 갱생이나 계속 추진의 의도가 있더라도 신규자금의 융통 없이 단지 기존채무의 이행을 유예받기 위하여 자신의 채권자 중 한 사람에게 담보를 제공하는 행위는 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서는 사해행위에 해당한다. [3] 의료병원 운영자 갑이 채무초과 상태에서 을 저축은행으로부터 대출을 받으면서 이에 대한 담보로 갑의 국민건강보험공단에 대한 현재 또는 장래의 요양급여채권을 양도하고, 위 대출금의 상당 부분을 병 저축은행에 대한 기존 대출금 채무 변제에 사용한 사안에서, 갑은 기존 대출금 채무를 변제하기 위해서 대출을 받고 담보로 채권양도를 하였던 것으로 보일 뿐 위 대출과 채권양도가 신규자금 유입을 통한 갑의 변제능력 향상에 기여하였다고 볼 근거는 없는 점, 위 채권양도로 을 은행은 국민건강보험공단의 갑에 대한 요양급여비용이 담보로 제공된 일정액에 이를 때까지 갑 대신 이를 지급받게 되는데 그 기간 동안 갑의 다른 일반채권자들은 요양급여채권에 대한 강제집행이 사실상 배제되어 이를 통한 채권만족이 어려워지는 점 등을 고려하면, 위 채권양도는 갑의 채무초과 상태를 더욱 심화시키고 을 은행에 대해서만 다른 채권자에 우선하여 자신의 채권을 회수할 기회를 부여하는 것으로 볼 수 있으므로 다른 일반채권자들을 해하는 사해행위에 해당한다고 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] 민법 제406조 제1항 [2] 민법 제406조 제1항 [3] 민법 제406조 제1항
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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