Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Limitation interrupted by a personal rehabilitation claim list and the guarantor
Supreme Court, Aug. 30, 2019, 2019Da235528 (judgment)
Case name: 양수금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a debtor applied for personal rehabilitation before the extinctive prescription period ran and submitted a claim list naming the creditor, does the interruption of prescription continue for as long as the procedure runs, does the approval of a repayment plan alone affect it, and does the interruption bind the debtor's guarantor?
Holding
It continues. Where a personal rehabilitation claim list is submitted, or a rehabilitation creditor otherwise joins the procedure, the prescription is interrupted, and the effect continues for as long as the procedure runs unless there are special circumstances. The approval of a repayment plan alone does not affect it, because the change of rights under the plan does not arise until a discharge decision becomes final; the interruption against the principal debtor also binds the guarantor.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
시효중단의 효력은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 개인회생절차가 진행되는 동안에는 그대로 유지된다
Unofficial English translation
The effect of interruption of prescription shall, unless there are special circumstances, continue to be maintained as it is while the individual rehabilitation proceedings are pending
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
개인회생절차에서 개인회생채권자목록이 제출되거나 그 밖에 개인회생채권자가 개인회생절차에 참가한 경우에는 시효중단의 효력이 있고(채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제32조 제3호, 제589조 제2항), 시효중단의 효력은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 개인회생절차가 진행되는 동안에는 그대로 유지된다
Unofficial English translation
In individual rehabilitation proceedings, where a list of individual rehabilitation creditors is submitted or individual rehabilitation creditors otherwise participate in the individual rehabilitation proceedings, there is an effect of interruption of prescription (Article 32, subparagraph 3 and Article 589 (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the effect of interruption of prescription shall, unless there are special circumstances, continue to be maintained as it is while the individual rehabilitation proceedings are pending
Factors
- 시효중단의 효력은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 개인회생절차가 진행되는 동안에는 그대로 유지된다
- 변제계획에 따른 권리의 변경은 면책결정이 확정되기까지는 생기지 않으므로
- 변제계획인가결정만으로는 시효중단의 효력에 영향이 없다
- 소멸시효기간이 지나기 전에 개인회생 신청을 하면서
- 시효의 중단은 보증인인 병에게도 효력이 있다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• The effect of interruption of prescription shall, unless there are special circumstances, continue to be maintained as it is while the individual rehabilitation proceedings are pending
• since changes to rights under the repayment plan do not arise until the discharge order becomes final and conclusive,
• an approval order for the repayment plan alone has no effect on the effect of interruption of prescription
• filed for individual rehabilitation before the period of extinctive prescription had elapsed, while
• a case affirming the judgment of the court below to the effect that the interruption of prescription was also effective against C, the surety
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고 2013다42878 판결(공2013하, 1775)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42878 pronounced September 12, 2013 (Gong 2013 Ha, 1775)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고 2013다42878 판결(공2013하, 1775)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances other than the dismissal of the procedure are 'special circumstances' that end the maintenance of the interruption of prescription?
A finding in the record that the personal rehabilitation procedure was dismissed or completed before the claim was enforced would require this entry to be read again. So would any amendment to Article 32(iii), Article 589(2) or Article 615(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or a later decision that treats the approval of a repayment plan differently.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Eastern District Court, in its judgment of 10 May 2019 (2019Na22052), rejected the defendant's defence of extinctive prescription. The principal debtor had applied for personal rehabilitation on 25 January 2008, before the five-year commercial prescription period ran, submitted a claim list naming the plaintiff as a creditor, obtained approval of the repayment plan on 15 July 2008, and the procedure was still running at the close of oral argument.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Applying the law that the interruption continues while the procedure runs unless there are special circumstances, and that Article 440 of the Civil Act extends the interruption against the principal debtor to the guarantor, it held the court below had decided correctly. It also held that the decisions the appellant cited concerned the former Corporate Reorganisation Act and the former Composition Act, under which approval itself produces a change of rights or the effect of discharge, so they did not fit this case.
Distinguishing conditions
- A personal rehabilitation procedure that has been dismissed, since the effect of the interruption is maintained while the procedure continues.
- Special circumstances that keep the interruption from being maintained, which the holding expressly leaves open.
- A corporate reorganisation or composition case under the former Corporate Reorganisation Act or the former Composition Act, where approval of the plan itself changes rights or produces the effect of discharge.
Record verification notes
First fix the date on which the claim was entered in the claim list or the creditor joined the procedure, and compare it with the day the prescription period would have run, since the case turned on a filing made in time. Then confirm from the file that the rehabilitation procedure had not been dismissed and was still pending when the case was heard. If the debtor sued is a guarantor, keep Article 440 of the Civil Act in view and check the prescription running against the principal debtor.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 개인회생절차에서 개인회생채권자목록이 제출되거나 그 밖에 개인회생채권자가 개인회생절차에 참가한 경우, 시효중단의 효력이 개인회생절차가 진행되는 동안에 그대로 유지되는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 개인회생절차에서 변제계획인가결정만으로 시효중단의 효력에 영향을 미치는지 여부(소극) [2] 갑 유한회사의 주채무자 을이 소멸시효기간이 지나기 전에 개인회생 신청을 하면서 갑 회사를 채권자로 하는 채권자목록을 제출한 후 변제계획인가결정을 받았는데, 갑 회사가 연대보증인인 병을 상대로 보증채무의 이행을 구한 사안에서, 을의 채무는 개인회생신청을 하면서 갑 회사를 채권자로 하는 채권자목록을 제출한 시점에 소멸시효가 중단되고, 을의 개인회생절차가 폐지되지 않고 계속 진행 중인 이상 시효중단의 효력은 그대로 유지되며, 을에 대한 시효의 중단은 보증인인 병에게도 효력이 있다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in individual rehabilitation proceedings, where a list of individual rehabilitation creditors is submitted or individual rehabilitation creditors otherwise participate in the individual rehabilitation proceedings, the effect of interruption of prescription continues to be maintained as it is while the individual rehabilitation proceedings are pending (affirmative in principle), and whether an approval order for the repayment plan in individual rehabilitation proceedings alone affects the effect of interruption of prescription (negative) [2] In a case where B, the principal debtor of A, a limited liability company, filed for individual rehabilitation before the period of extinctive prescription had elapsed, submitting a list of creditors naming Company A as a creditor, and thereafter obtained an order approving the repayment plan, and Company A sought performance of the guaranteed obligation from C, a joint and several surety, holding that the extinctive prescription of B's obligation was interrupted at the time when B filed for individual rehabilitation and submitted the list of creditors naming Company A as a creditor, that insofar as B's individual rehabilitation proceedings had not been terminated and continued to be pending, the effect of interruption continued to be maintained as it was, and that the interruption of prescription against B was also effective against C, the surety, a case affirming the judgment of the court below
Summary of the holding
[1] 개인회생절차에서 개인회생채권자목록이 제출되거나 그 밖에 개인회생채권자가 개인회생절차에 참가한 경우에는 시효중단의 효력이 있고(채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제32조 제3호, 제589조 제2항), 시효중단의 효력은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 개인회생절차가 진행되는 동안에는 그대로 유지된다. 개인회생절차에서 변제계획인가결정이 있더라도 변제계획에 따른 권리의 변경은 면책결정이 확정되기까지는 생기지 않으므로(채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제615조 제1항), 변제계획인가결정만으로는 시효중단의 효력에 영향이 없다. [2] 갑 유한회사의 주채무자 을이 소멸시효기간이 지나기 전에 개인회생 신청을 하면서 갑 회사를 채권자로 하는 채권자목록을 제출한 후 변제계획인가결정을 받았는데, 갑 회사가 연대보증인인 병을 상대로 보증채무의 이행을 구한 사안에서, 을의 채무는 개인회생신청을 하면서 갑 회사를 채권자로 하는 채권자목록을 제출한 시점에 소멸시효가 중단되고, 을의 개인회생절차가 폐지되지 않고 계속 진행 중인 이상 시효중단의 효력은 그대로 유지되며, 을에 대한 시효의 중단은 보증인인 병에게도 효력이 있다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 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 제32조 제3호, 제589조 제2항, 제615조 제1항 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제32조 제3호, 제589조 제2항, 제615조 제1항, 민법 제440조
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