Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Counting the 20 days before a rehabilitation application and standing on a registered claim
Supreme Court, Mar. 2, 2020, 2019Da243420 (judgment)
Case name: 물품대금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
How is the period of 'within 20 days before an application for the opening of rehabilitation proceedings' in Article 179(1)(viii)-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act calculated, and does a pending suit on a rehabilitation claim that was reported, admitted and entered in the creditor list still have standing?
Holding
The first day, being the date of the application, is excluded and the period expires when the last day ends. Because Article 33 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Execution Act where that Act is silent, and Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Act refers period calculation to the Civil Code, the Civil Code's rules apply, and the claim of KRW 1,499,300 supplied on 26 May 2017 fell within the 20 days counted back from 14 June 2017, the day before the application of 15 June 2017, so it was a public-interest claim. As to standing, a rehabilitation claim reported under Article 148(1) that meets no objection is confirmed as reported under Article 166(i), and once entered in the creditor list under Article 168 its entry has the same effect as a final judgment, so a pending suit on it is improper for want of standing.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 위 조항에서 정한 ‘회생절차개시신청 전 20일 이내’라는 기간을 계산할 때에도 기간 계산에 관한 민법 규정이 준용되므로, 민법 제157조 본문에 따라 회생절차개시신청일인 초일은 산입하지 않고, 민법 제159조에 따라 기간 말일의 종료로 기간이 만료한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, when calculating the period of 'within 20 days before the date of application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings' provided in the foregoing Article as well, the Civil Act provisions governing the computation of periods apply mutatis mutandis, so that, under the main text of Article 157 of the Civil Act, the initial day, which is the date of application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, is not included, and, pursuant to Article 159 of the Civil Act, it must be regarded that the period expires upon the end of the last day.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 2017. 5. 26.자 1,499,300원의 물품대금채권에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for the price of goods in the amount of 1,499,300 won dated May 26, 2017 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
확정된 회생채권을 회생채권자표에 기재한 때에는 그 기재는 확정판결과 동일한 효력이 있으므로(채무자회생법 제168조), 계속 중이던 회생채권에 관한 소송은 소의 이익이 없어 부적법하게 된다
Unofficial English translation
Where a confirmed rehabilitation claim has been recorded in the table of rehabilitation claims, such record has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 168 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and thus the lawsuit pending concerning the rehabilitation claim becomes improper for lack of a legal interest in maintaining an action
Factors
- 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제33조는 회생절차에 관하여 채무자회생법에 규정이 없는 때에는 민사소송법과 민사집행법을 준용하도록 정하고
- 민사소송법 제170조는 기간의 계산을 민법에 따르도록 정하고 있다
- 그 기간 계산에 관해서는 특별한 규정을 두고 있지 않다
- 신고된 회생채권에 대하여 이의가 없는 때에는 채권이 신고한 내용대로 확정되고
- 그 기재는 확정판결과 동일한 효력이 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Article 33 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Debtor Rehabilitation Act') provides that, in respect of rehabilitation proceedings, where the Debtor Rehabilitation Act contains no provision, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, and
• Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the computation of periods shall follow the Civil Act
• no special provision is set forth regarding the computation of that period
• where there is no objection to a reported rehabilitation claim, the claim is confirmed as reported, and
• such record has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 6. 26. 선고 2013다17971 판결(공2014하, 1457)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Da17971 decided June 26, 2014 (Gong 2014 Ha, 1457)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2014. 6. 26. 선고 2013다17971 판결(공2014하, 1457)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the last day of the 20-day period falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, does Article 159(2) of the Civil Code extend the period, and would a claim supplied on that extended day still be a public-interest claim?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Southern District Court on the claim of KRW 1,499,300 supplied on 26 May 2017 will show how the public-interest claim is treated on remand. Any amendment to Article 33 or Article 179(1)(viii)-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or a later decision on the calculation of that period, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the last day of the 20-day period falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, does Article 159(2) of the Civil Code extend the period, and would a claim supplied on that extended day still be a public-interest claim?” vs Independent “How should a pending action be treated if only part of the claim is finalized and entered in the rehabilitation creditors' schedule?”
The primary asks whether a Sunday or holiday last day extends the period under Article 159(2) of the Civil Code, while the independent asks how a pending suit is handled when only part of the claim is finalized and entered.
따라서 위 조항에서 정한 ‘회생절차개시신청 전 20일 이내’라는 기간을 계산할 때에도 기간 계산에 관한 민법 규정이 준용되므로, 민법 제157조 본문에 따라 회생절차개시신청일인 초일은 산입하지 않고, 민법 제159조에 따라 기간 말일의 종료로 기간이 만료한다고 보아야 한다.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 Southern District Court, in its judgment of 13 June 2019 (2018Na66812), counted back 20 days from the defendant's application date of 15 June 2017 and held that the goods price claim of KRW 2,013,000 supplied within that span was a public-interest claim, while the earlier claim of KRW 1,499,300 supplied on 26 May 2017 was a rehabilitation claim. It therefore dismissed the part of the claim seeking payment of KRW 1,499,300 as lacking an interest in the protection of rights.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the day before the application date, 14 June 2017, counted back 20 days to 26 May 2017 on its face, so the claim of KRW 1,499,300 was a public-interest claim under Article 179(1)(viii)-2, and that the court below had violated the law in calculating the period in a way that affected the judgment. On the claim of KRW 464,200 supplied on 22 May 2017, examined on the Court's own initiative, the record showed that the plaintiff had reported it as a rehabilitation claim, the defendant admitted it without objection, and it was confirmed as reported and entered in the creditor list, so that part of the suit had lost standing; the reasoning of the court below was inappropriate but its conclusion of dismissal was correct.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim supplied before 26 May 2017 in this case, which falls outside the 20 days counted back from the day before the application and remains a rehabilitation claim.
- A reported rehabilitation claim against which an objection was raised, where a claim-examination ruling under Article 170(1) and, against it, a lawsuit under Article 171(1) are the route instead of a direct payment suit.
- A rehabilitation claim that has not been entered in the creditor list with the effect of a final judgment, so that the condition the Court relied on for the loss of standing is absent.
Record verification notes
Fix the exact date of the application for the opening of rehabilitation proceedings and count back from the day before it, excluding the first day and ending the period only when the last day ends. Then check the file for the report of the claim, the presence or absence of an objection, and the entry in the creditor list, since each of those steps decides whether a pending suit may continue.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제179조 제1항 제8호의2에서 정한 ‘회생절차개시신청 전 20일 이내’라는 기간을 계산하는 방법(=회생절차개시신청일인 초일은 산입하지 않고, 기간 말일의 종료로 기간 만료) [2] 회생채권으로 신고된 채권이 신고한 내용대로 확정되어 회생채권자표에 기재된 경우, 계속 중이던 회생채권에 관한 소송에 소의 이익이 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method of calculating the period of 'within 20 days before the date of application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings' provided in Article 179 (1) subparagraph 8-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (= the initial day, which is the date of application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, is not included, and the period expires upon the end of the last day) [2] Whether there is a legal interest in maintaining an action in a lawsuit pending concerning a rehabilitation claim where a claim reported as a rehabilitation claim has been confirmed as reported and recorded in the table of rehabilitation claims (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제33조는 회생절차에 관하여 채무자회생법에 규정이 없는 때에는 민사소송법과 민사집행법을 준용하도록 정하고, 민사소송법 제170조는 기간의 계산을 민법에 따르도록 정하고 있다. 한편 채무자회생법은 ‘회생절차개시신청 전 20일 이내에 채무자가 계속적이고 정상적인 영업활동으로 공급받은 물건에 대한 대금청구권’은 공익채권으로 정하고 있는데(제179조 제1항 제8호의2), 그 기간 계산에 관해서는 특별한 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 따라서 위 조항에서 정한 ‘회생절차개시신청 전 20일 이내’라는 기간을 계산할 때에도 기간 계산에 관한 민법 규정이 준용되므로, 민법 제157조 본문에 따라 회생절차개시신청일인 초일은 산입하지 않고, 민법 제159조에 따라 기간 말일의 종료로 기간이 만료한다고 보아야 한다. [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다)에 따른 회생절차에 참가하고자 하는 회생채권자는 회생채권 신고를 하여야 하고(채무자회생법 제148조 제1항), 신고된 회생채권에 대하여 이의가 제기된 때에는 이의자 전원을 상대방으로 하여 법원에 채권조사확정재판을 신청할 수 있으며(채무자회생법 제170조 제1항), 그 재판에 불복하는 자는 채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소를 제기할 수 있다(채무자회생법 제171조 제1항). 신고된 회생채권에 대하여 이의가 없는 때에는 채권이 신고한 내용대로 확정되고(채무자회생법 제166조 제1호), 확정된 회생채권을 회생채권자표에 기재한 때에는 그 기재는 확정판결과 동일한 효력이 있으므로(채무자회생법 제168조), 계속 중이던 회생채권에 관한 소송은 소의 이익이 없어 부적법하게 된다.
Order
원심판결 중 2017. 5. 26.자 1,499,300원의 물품대금채권에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for the price of goods in the amount of 1,499,300 won dated May 26, 2017 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제33조, 제179조 제1항 제8호의2, 민사소송법 제170조, 민법 제157조, 제159조 [2] 민사소송법 제248조[소의 제기], 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제148조 제1항, 제166조 제1호, 제168조, 제170조 제1항, 제171조 제1항
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