Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Rehabilitation administrator as a good-faith third party to a no-set-off agreement
Supreme Court, May 30, 2024, 2019Da47387 (judgment)
Case name: 대여금등[회생채무자의 관리인이 민법 제492조 제2항 단서에서 정한 제3자에 해당하는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a creditor and a debtor have agreed to bar the debtor from setting off, and rehabilitation proceedings against the debtor are then opened, is the debtor's administrator a third party within the proviso to Article 492(2) of the Civil Act, and by what standard is the administrator's good or bad faith as to the agreement judged?
Holding
The administrator is. On the opening of rehabilitation the debtor's rights of business performance and of managing and disposing of property pass exclusively to the administrator, who is neither the debtor nor its organ or representative but the manager of the body made up of the debtor and its creditors, a kind of public trustee performing duties with the care of a good manager for the common benefit of all. The administrator's good or bad faith as to the agreement cannot be judged by the individual's own knowledge: it is judged by all rehabilitation creditors and secured creditors, and unless all of them are in bad faith the administrator can only be a good-faith third party.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 채권자와 채무자가 채무자의 상계를 금지하는 특약을 한 후에 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시된 경우 채무자의 관리인은 상계금지특약에 있어 민법 제492조 제2항 단서에 정한 제3자에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, where the creditor and the debtor have entered into an agreement prohibiting the debtor's set-off and rehabilitation proceedings are thereafter commenced against the debtor, the debtor's manager falls under the third party provided in the proviso to Article 492 (2) of the Civil Act with respect to the set-off prohibition agreement.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용 중 보조참가로 인한 부분은 원고보조참가인이, 나머지는 원고(선정당사자)가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion arising from the auxiliary participation shall be borne by the plaintiff's auxiliary participant, and the remainder by the plaintiff (selected party), respectively.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이때 상계금지특약 사실에 대한 관리인의 선의·악의는 관리인 개인의 선의·악의를 기준으로 할 수는 없고
Unofficial English translation
In this case, whether the manager is in good faith or bad faith as to the existence of the set-off prohibition agreement cannot be determined on the basis of the manager's individual good faith or bad faith, and
Factors
- 회생절차개시결정이 있는 때에는 채무자의 업무수행권과 재산의 관리처분권은 관리인에게 전속한다
- 채무자나 그의 기관 또는 대표자가 아니고 채무자와 그 채권자 등으로 구성되는 이른바 이해관계인 단체의 관리자로서 일종의 공적 수탁자에 해당한다
- 채무자와 독립하여 채권자 등 전체의 공동의 이익을 위하여 선량한 관리자의 주의로써 직무를 수행하게 된다
- 모든 회생채권자 및 회생담보권자를 기준으로 하여 회생채권자 및 회생담보권자 모두가 악의로 되지 않는 한
Unofficial English translation
• When there is an order commencing rehabilitation proceedings, the debtor's right to conduct business and the authority to manage and dispose of property exclusively belong to the manager
• the manager is not the debtor or its organ or representative, but, as the manager of the so-called group of interested parties composed of the debtor and its creditors, falls under a kind of public trustee
• the manager, independently of the debtor, performs the duties with the care of a prudent manager for the common interest of all creditors
• based on all rehabilitation creditors and holders of rehabilitation security rights, unless both rehabilitation creditors and holders of rehabilitation security rights are in bad faith
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1988. 10. 11. 선고 87다카1559 판결(공1988, 1403), 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2010다63836 판결(공2013상, 733)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 87DaKa1559 decided October 11, 1988 (Gong 1988, 1403), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da63836 decided March 28, 2013 (Gong 2013 Sang, 733)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1988. 10. 11. 선고 87다카1559 판결(공1988, 1403), 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고 2010다63836 판결(공2013상, 733)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How does the set-off permission granted by the rehabilitation court bear on a no-set-off agreement, given that this decision decides the case on the third-party rule alone?
A later decision applying a different standard where a single rehabilitation creditor or secured creditor knew of the agreement would change the reading of the good-faith test. Any amendment to Article 56(1) of the Act on the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy or to Article 492(2) of the Civil Act also calls for a fresh reading.
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 “How does the set-off permission granted by the rehabilitation court bear on a no-set-off agreement, given that this decision decides the case on the third-party rule alone?” vs Independent “At what point must all rehabilitation creditors' and secured rehabilitation creditors' knowledge of the setoff prohibition be assessed?”
The primary reading asks how the rehabilitation court's set-off permission affects the no-set-off agreement, while the independent reading asks at what point creditors' knowledge must be assessed.
따라서 채권자와 채무자가 채무자의 상계를 금지하는 특약을 한 후에 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시된 경우 채무자의 관리인은 상계금지특약에 있어 민법 제492조 제2항 단서에 정한 제3자에 해당한다.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 High Court, in its judgment of 25 October 2019 (2018Na9687), held that the defendant, treated as the administrator of △△ Transportation Co., Ltd., was a good-faith third party within the proviso to Article 492(2) of the Civil Act, and could therefore set off the recourse claim the company held against the participant against the participant's loan claim despite the no-set-off agreement. The decision does not set out the reasons of the court below in any greater detail.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that some parts of the appellate reasoning were not entirely apt, but the conclusion was proper and to be accepted. It found no error affecting the judgment, such as a misunderstanding of the administrator's position or of the scope of the third party under the proviso to Article 492(2) of the Civil Act, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices sitting.
Distinguishing conditions
- An agreement barring set-off concluded after the opening of rehabilitation proceedings, since the decision's rule turns on an agreement made before the administrator came into the office.
- A case in which every rehabilitation creditor and every secured creditor knew of the no-set-off agreement, so that the administrator cannot count as acting in good faith.
- A person acting as the debtor's organ or representative rather than performing duties independently for the common benefit of the body of interested parties.
Record verification notes
Set the date of the no-set-off agreement against the date of the opening decision, since the rule applies where the agreement came first. Gather what each rehabilitation creditor and secured creditor knew when the set-off was declared, because the administrator's good faith turns on all of them rather than on the individual. Also record the set-off permission the rehabilitation court granted on 20 December 2018 and 22 February 2019 and whether it has become final, as the decision does not examine its bearing on the agreement.
From the official text
Points at issue
채권자와 채무자가 채무자의 상계를 금지하는 특약을 한 후 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시된 경우, 채무자의 관리인이 상계금지특약에 있어 민법 제492조 제2항 단서에 정한 제3자에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 상계금지특약 사실에 대한 관리인의 선의 여부를 판단하는 기준(=모든 회생채권자 및 회생담보권자)
Unofficial English translation
Where the creditor and the debtor have entered into an agreement prohibiting the debtor's set-off and rehabilitation proceedings are thereafter commenced against the debtor, whether the debtor's manager falls under the third party provided in the proviso to Article 492 (2) of the Civil Act with respect to the set-off prohibition agreement (affirmative), and the criterion for determining whether the manager was in good faith as to the existence of the set-off prohibition agreement at that time (=all rehabilitation creditors and holders of rehabilitation security rights)
Summary of the holding
회생절차개시결정이 있는 때에는 채무자의 업무수행권과 재산의 관리처분권은 관리인에게 전속한다(채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제56조 제1항). 관리인은 채무자나 그의 기관 또는 대표자가 아니고 채무자와 그 채권자 등으로 구성되는 이른바 이해관계인 단체의 관리자로서 일종의 공적 수탁자에 해당한다. 이와 같이 관리인은 회생절차개시결정에 따라 채무자와 독립하여 채권자 등 전체의 공동의 이익을 위하여 선량한 관리자의 주의로써 직무를 수행하게 된다. 따라서 채권자와 채무자가 채무자의 상계를 금지하는 특약을 한 후에 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시된 경우 채무자의 관리인은 상계금지특약에 있어 민법 제492조 제2항 단서에 정한 제3자에 해당한다. 이때 상계금지특약 사실에 대한 관리인의 선의·악의는 관리인 개인의 선의·악의를 기준으로 할 수는 없고, 모든 회생채권자 및 회생담보권자를 기준으로 하여 회생채권자 및 회생담보권자 모두가 악의로 되지 않는 한 관리인은 선의의 제3자라고 할 수밖에 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용 중 보조참가로 인한 부분은 원고보조참가인이, 나머지는 원고(선정당사자)가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion arising from the auxiliary participation shall be borne by the plaintiff's auxiliary participant, and the remainder by the plaintiff (selected party), respectively.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제56조 제1항, 제82조 제1항, 민법 제492조 제2항
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