Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Business transferee's liability and the limits of statutory subrogation
Supreme Court, Feb. 6, 2020, 2019Da270217 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act, must the third party's claim for which a transferee continuing the trade name answers have arisen by the time of the transfer, and when a guarantor pays in the creditor's stead, is the scope of the original claim and the security rights exercised by subrogation limited to the scope of the recourse claim?
Holding
Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act does not extend to succession by the transferee to the position of guarantor in respect of the transferor's business funds, although under it the transferor remains the principal obligor while the transferee answers alongside. The claim need not have fallen due by the time of the transfer, but it must have arisen by then, and a claim certain to arise in the near future as at the transfer date is not one the transferee must answer. Statutory subrogation under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act secures the effect of the recourse claim, so the original claim and the security rights exercised in subrogation are limited to the scope of that recourse claim.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
영업양수인이 위 규정에 따라 책임지는 제3자의 채권은 영업양도 당시 채무의 변제기가 도래할 필요까지는 없다고 하더라도 그 당시까지 발생한 것이어야 하고, 영업양도 당시로 보아 가까운 장래에 발생될 것이 확실한 채권도 양수인이 책임져야 한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The third party's claim for which a business transferee is liable under said provision must have arisen by the time of the business transfer, even though it is not necessary for the due date of the debt to have arrived as of that time, and a claim certain to arise in the near future as of the time of the business transfer cannot be regarded as one for which the transferee must also bear liability.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
대위에 의한 원채권 및 담보권의 행사 범위는 구상권의 범위로 한정된다.
Unofficial English translation
The scope of exercise of the principal claim and security interest by subrogation is limited to the scope of the right to reimbursement.
Factors
- 양도인이 여전히 주채무자로서 채무를 부담하면서 양수인도 함께 변제책임을 지도록 하고 있으나
- 위 규정이 영업양수인이 양도인의 영업자금과 관련한 피보증인의 지위까지 승계하도록 한 것이라고 보기는 어렵고
- 영업양도 당시 채무의 변제기가 도래할 필요까지는 없다고 하더라도 그 당시까지 발생한 것이어야 하고
- 영업양도 당시로 보아 가까운 장래에 발생될 것이 확실한 채권도 양수인이 책임져야 한다고 볼 수 없다
- 대위에 의한 원채권 및 담보권의 행사 범위는 구상권의 범위로 한정된다
Unofficial English translation
• The transferor continues to bear the debt as the principal obligor while the transferee also bears liability for payment together, and
• it is difficult to regard said provision as one whereby the business transferee succeeds even to the position of principal in relation to the transferor's business funds, and
• even though it is not necessary for the due date of the debt to have arrived as of the time of the business transfer, it must have arisen by that time, and
• a claim certain to arise in the near future as of the time of the business transfer cannot be regarded as one for which the transferee must also bear liability
• the scope of exercise of the principal claim and security interest by subrogation is limited to the scope of the right to reimbursement
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2004. 2. 13. 선고 2003다51569 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2003Da51569 decided February 13, 2004
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2004. 2. 13. 선고 2003다51569 판결, 대법원 2004. 12. 9. 선고 2004다35656 판결 / [2] 대법원 1999. 10. 22. 선고 98다22451 판결(공1999하, 2408), 대법원 2010. 5. 27. 선고 2009다85861 판결(공2010하, 1246)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the transferee expressly assumed the transferor's guarantee obligations by agreement rather than by Article 42(1), would the transferee answer for a claim certain to arise in the near future after the transfer?
The retrial judgment of the Incheon District Court on remand, once it decides whether the plaintiff holds a recourse claim against the defendant, would show how the two rules operate together. A change to Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act or to Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act 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 transferee expressly assumed the transferor's guarantee obligations by agreement rather than by Article 42(1), would the transferee answer for a claim certain to arise in the near future after the transfer?” vs Independent “When should a claim arising from a continuing guarantee relationship be regarded as having arisen for purposes of the business transferee's liability?”
The primary asks whether an express contractual assumption of guarantee obligations would change the result, while the independent asks when a claim from a continuing guarantee relationship counts as having arisen.
영업양수인이 위 규정에 따라 책임지는 제3자의 채권은 영업양도 당시 채무의 변제기가 도래할 필요까지는 없다고 하더라도 그 당시까지 발생한 것이어야 하고, 영업양도 당시로 보아 가까운 장래에 발생될 것이 확실한 채권도 양수인이 책임져야 한다고 볼 수 없다.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 Incheon District Court, in its judgment of 5 September 2019 (2019Na54934), dismissed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of money because the plaintiff's claim against the non-party had not yet arisen when the business was transferred. On the subrogated payment claim it found that the plaintiff, as guarantor, had a legitimate interest in paying the non-party's debt and so acquired statutory subrogation against the borrower vis-à-vis the lender Korea Exchange Bank, and that the subrogated claim was a transfer of that original claim itself, which had already arisen by the time of the transfer. The defendant, as a transferee continuing the trade name, was therefore liable to pay jointly, and the claim was granted.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that where, as the court below found on the recovery claim, the plaintiff holds no recourse claim against the defendant, statutory subrogation, which is allowed to secure the effect of that recourse claim, cannot be permitted, and the plaintiff cannot exercise Korea Exchange Bank's original claim against the defendant in subrogation. It held that the judgment below misapprehended the law on statutory subrogation and on the liability of a transferee continuing the trade name, in a way affecting the result, reversed it and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court for retrial, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A third party's claim that had already arisen by the time of the business transfer, even though its maturity had not yet arrived, since the Court allowed a difference only between arising and falling due.
- A transferee who did not continue the transferor's trade name, since Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act applies where the transferee uses the trade name.
- A subrogating guarantor who does hold a recourse claim against the defendant against which the subrogation is exercised, since the scope of the exercise then stands or falls with that claim.
Record verification notes
Fix the date of the business transfer and set each claim relied on against it, asking separately whether it had arisen and whether it had fallen due. Then separate the recovery claim from the subrogated payment claim, and for the latter identify the recourse claim the plaintiff says it holds against the defendant, since the subrogation cannot reach further than that claim. Confirm as well that the transferee actually continued the transferor's trade name, which is the condition on which the transferee's payment liability rests.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상법 제42조 제1항이 영업양수인으로 하여금 양도인의 영업자금과 관련한 피보증인의 지위까지 승계하도록 한 규정인지 여부(소극) / 영업양수인이 위 규정에 따라 책임지는 제3자의 채권은 영업양도 당시까지 발생한 것이어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 영업양도 당시로 보아 가까운 장래에 발생될 것이 확실한 채권도 영업양수인이 책임져야 하는지 여부(소극) [2] 민법 제481조, 제482조에서 정한 변제자대위에 의하여 원채권 및 담보권을 행사할 수 있는 범위(=변제자가 갖는 구상권의 범위 내)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act is a provision whereby a business transferee succeeds even to the position of principal in relation to the transferor's business funds (negative) / Whether the third party's claim for which a business transferee is liable under said provision must have arisen by the time of the business transfer (affirmative), and whether a claim certain to arise in the near future as of the time of the business transfer must also be borne by the business transferee (negative) [2] The scope in which the principal claim and security interest may be exercised by subrogation of the person who made payment under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act (= within the scope of the right to reimbursement held by the person who made payment)
Summary of the holding
[1] 상법 제42조 제1항은 영업양수인이 양도인의 상호를 계속 사용하는 경우 양도인의 영업으로 인한 제3자의 채권에 대하여 양수인도 변제할 책임이 있다고 규정함으로써 양도인이 여전히 주채무자로서 채무를 부담하면서 양수인도 함께 변제책임을 지도록 하고 있으나, 위 규정이 영업양수인이 양도인의 영업자금과 관련한 피보증인의 지위까지 승계하도록 한 것이라고 보기는 어렵고, 영업양수인이 위 규정에 따라 책임지는 제3자의 채권은 영업양도 당시 채무의 변제기가 도래할 필요까지는 없다고 하더라도 그 당시까지 발생한 것이어야 하고, 영업양도 당시로 보아 가까운 장래에 발생될 것이 확실한 채권도 양수인이 책임져야 한다고 볼 수 없다. [2] 민법 제481조, 제482조에서 규정하고 있는 변제자대위는 제3자 또는 공동채무자의 한 사람이 주채무를 변제함으로써 채무자 또는 다른 공동채무자에 대하여 갖게 된 구상권의 효력을 확보하기 위한 제도이므로, 대위에 의한 원채권 및 담보권의 행사 범위는 구상권의 범위로 한정된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제42조 제1항 [2] 민법 제481조, 제482조
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