Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Article 178 valuation on an appeal after transfer of a claim action
Supreme Court, July 13, 2023, 2019Ma449 (ruling)
Case name: 소송비용액확정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the determination of the value of the object of litigation under Article 178 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act cover the case where, under Article 172, litigation pending on a disputed claim at the commencement of rehabilitation is transferred, and if so, does that valuation fix the value of the object of the litigation in the appeal that follows the transfer?
Holding
Both questions were answered in the affirmative. Article 178 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act covers not only an action objecting to a ruling on the confirmation of claims under Article 171, but also the transfer, under Article 172, of litigation pending on a disputed claim when the rehabilitation procedure began. Because Article 178 applies in the transferred case so that the value of the object of the litigation can be fixed to calculate the court fee of an appeal against the judgment, the valuation fixes the value for that appeal and does not reach back to the instance in which the transfer took place.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
채무자회생법 제178조에서 정한 소송목적의 가액 결정 대상에는 채무자회생법 제171조에 따라 채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소를 제기하는 경우뿐만 아니라 채무자회생법 제172조에 따라 회생절차개시 당시 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계하는 경우도 포함된다.
Unofficial English translation
The scope of determination of the value of the subject matter of a lawsuit under Article 178 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act includes not only a case where an action objecting to a judgment confirming the investigation and determination of a claim is filed pursuant to Article 171 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, but also a case where, pursuant to Article 172 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a lawsuit pending as of the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with respect to a disputed claim is succeeded to.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
소송목적의 값은 소 제기 시를 기준으로 원고가 청구취지로써 구하는 범위 내에서 원고의 입장에서 보아 전부 승소할 경우에 직접 받게 될 경제적 이익을 객관적으로 평가하여 금액으로 정한다.
Unofficial English translation
The value of the subject matter of a lawsuit is determined, based on the time of filing the action and within the scope sought by the plaintiff in the statement of the claim, by objectively assessing in monetary terms the economic benefit that the plaintiff would directly receive if the plaintiff were to prevail in full, from the plaintiff's standpoint.
Factors
- 소송목적의 값은 소 제기 시를 기준으로 원고가 청구취지로써 구하는 범위 내에서
- 채권존재확인의 소의 소송목적의 값은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채권의 가액에 따라
- 그 소송의 판결에 상소하는 때에 상소심 인지 산정을 위하여 소송목적의 값을 정할 필요가 있기 때문이므로
- 수계가 이루어진 심급이 아니라 그 이후 진행되는 상소심의 소송목적의 값을 정한 것으로 봄이 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
• The value of the subject matter of a lawsuit is, based on the time of filing the action, within the scope sought by the plaintiff in the statement of the claim
• the value of the subject matter of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a claim is determined in accordance with the value of the claim, absent special circumstances
• because when an appeal is taken from the judgment in that lawsuit, there is a need to determine the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit in order to calculate the revenue stamp fee for the appellate instance, and
• it is appropriate to regard it as determining the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit in the appellate instance proceeding thereafter, rather than in the instance where the succession took place
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 4. 18. 자 2014마95 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Ma95 decided April 18, 2014
Decisions referred to
대법원 2014. 4. 18. 자 2014마95 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where on remand the court determines the first-instance litigation costs, to what extent may it reduce lawyer's fees under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Inclusion of Lawyer's Fees in Litigation Costs?
The remand judgment, which must decide the first-instance litigation costs on its own record and may reduce lawyer's fees under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Inclusion of Lawyer's Fees in Litigation Costs, would show the range of that discretionary reduction in practice. An amendment to Article 178 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or a later decision fixing how far a rehabilitation-plan benefit or counsel's effort may move the fees, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “소송목적의 값은 소 제기 시를 기준으로 원고가 청구취지로써 구하는 범위 내에서 / 채권존재확인의 소의 소송목적의 값은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채권의 가액에 따라 / 그 소송의 판결에 상소하는 때에 상소심 인지 산정을 위하여 소송목적의 값을 정할 필요가 있기 때문이므로 / 수계가 이루어진 심급이 아니라 그 이후 진행되는 상소심의 소송목적의 값을 정한 것으로 봄이 타당하다” vs Independent “회생계획으로 얻을 이익의 예정액 / 회생절차개시 당시 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계하는 경우 / 상소심 인지 산정을 위하여 소송목적의 값을 정할 필요”
The primary reading centers on general rules for valuing the object of litigation, while the independent reading centers on the rehabilitation-plan benefit and the takeover scenario, so the factor sets overlap only in the appeal-fee rationale.
회생계획으로 얻을 이익의 예정액Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where on remand the court determines the first-instance litigation costs, to what extent may it reduce lawyer's fees under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Inclusion of Lawyer's Fees in Litigation Costs?” vs Independent “How should the anticipated benefit under the rehabilitation plan be quantified when its amount remains uncertain?”
The primary reading asks about lawyer's fee reduction on remand, while the independent reading asks how to quantify the anticipated rehabilitation benefit, which are different unresolved points.
채무자회생법 제178조에서 정한 소송목적의 가액 결정 대상에는 채무자회생법 제171조에 따라 채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소를 제기하는 경우뿐만 아니라 채무자회생법 제172조에 따라 회생절차개시 당시 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계하는 경우도 포함된다.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 court below, the Seoul High Court in its ruling of 26 June 2019 (2018Ra1643), used the value of KRW 147,000,000 which the rehabilitation-continuing court had fixed for the appeal, and applied it back to the first instance to calculate the first-instance litigation costs. It therefore treated the appellate valuation as changing the value of the object of the litigation at the first instance as well.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the valuation fixed by the rehabilitation-continuing court, which had been applied for to pay the appellate court fee and had been set as the value for the appeal, determined the value of the object of the litigation in the appeal that followed the first instance, and that it was hard to see it as changing the value retroactively at the first instance. It held that the court below had misapprehended the law in Article 178 on the determination of the value of the object of litigation and had erred in a way affecting the outcome, reversed the ruling and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, while noting that on remand the court may take account of the discretionary reduction of lawyer's fees under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Inclusion of Lawyer's Fees in Litigation Costs, weighing the content of the rehabilitation plan, the extent to which the litigation proceeded before and after the transfer at the first instance and the effort counsel put into it.
Distinguishing conditions
- A proceeding that is not about the confirmation of a rehabilitation claim or a rehabilitation secured claim, since the standard the Court stated is the expected benefit from the rehabilitation plan in such proceedings.
- A valuation made to pay the court fee of the instance in which the pending litigation was transferred, rather than the court fee of a later appeal, since the Court grounded the application of Article 178 on the need to value the object for an appeal.
- Not a condition of the holding: the decision does not exclude the application of Article 178 where the claim was not amended after the transfer.
Record verification notes
Confirm from the file whether the pending action was transferred under Article 172 at the opening of rehabilitation, since Article 178 was held to cover such a transfer. Then identify the instance for which the valuation was requested and fixed, and whether it was made to pay an appellate court fee, since the Court grounded the application of Article 178 on the need to value the object of the litigation to calculate the appellate court fee. Before relying on the first-instance costs figure, gather what would show the content of the rehabilitation plan, the extent of litigation before and after the transfer and counsel's effort, which the Court listed as matters for the discretionary reduction of lawyer's fees under Article 6(1) of the Rules on the Inclusion of Lawyer's Fees in Litigation Costs.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제178조에서 정한 소송목적의 가액 결정 대상에 같은 법 제172조에 따라 회생절차개시 당시 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계하는 경우가 포함되는지 여부(적극) 및 이 경우 소송목적가액 결정은 수계가 이루어진 후 진행되는 상소심의 소송목적의 값을 정한 것으로 보아야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the scope of determination of the value of the subject matter of a lawsuit under Article 178 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act includes a case where, pursuant to Article 172 of the same Act, a lawsuit pending as of the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with respect to a disputed claim is succeeded to (affirmative), and whether, in such case, the determination of the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit should be regarded as determining the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit in the appellate instance proceeding after the succession (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
민사소송법 제26조, 민사소송 등 인지법(이하 ‘인지법’이라 한다) 제2조 제3항, 민사소송 등 인지규칙(이하 ‘인지규칙’이라 한다) 제6조, 제7조에 의하면, 소송목적의 값은 소 제기 시를 기준으로 원고가 청구취지로써 구하는 범위 내에서 원고의 입장에서 보아 전부 승소할 경우에 직접 받게 될 경제적 이익을 객관적으로 평가하여 금액으로 정한다. 인지규칙 제12조 제1호, 제3호, 제11조에 의하면, 채권존재확인의 소의 소송목적의 값은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채권의 가액에 따라, 금전지급청구의 소의 소송목적의 값은 청구금액에 따라 산정한다. 이와 같이 정한 소송목적의 값은 소장 및 상소장에 첩부할 인지액을 산정하거나 청구가 확장되는 등으로 추가로 인지액을 납부하여야 하는 경우 그 인지액을 산정하는 기준이 된다(인지법 제2조, 제3조, 제5조 참조). 한편 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제178조는 회생채권 또는 회생담보권의 확정에 관한 소송의 목적의 가액은 회생계속법원이 회생계획으로 얻을 이익의 예정액을 표준으로 정하도록 규정하고 있다. 채무자회생법 제178조에서 정한 소송목적의 가액 결정 대상에는 채무자회생법 제171조에 따라 채권조사확정재판에 대한 이의의 소를 제기하는 경우뿐만 아니라 채무자회생법 제172조에 따라 회생절차개시 당시 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계하는 경우도 포함된다. 채무자회생법 제172조에 따라 이의채권에 관하여 계속 중인 소송을 수계한 경우에도 채무자회생법 제178조를 적용하는 것은 그 소송의 판결에 상소하는 때에 상소심 인지 산정을 위하여 소송목적의 값을 정할 필요가 있기 때문이므로, 이 경우 소송목적가액 결정은 수계가 이루어진 심급이 아니라 그 이후 진행되는 상소심의 소송목적의 값을 정한 것으로 봄이 타당하다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제26조, 민사소송 등 인지법 제2조, 제3조, 제5조, 민사소송 등 인지규칙 제6조, 제7조, 제11조, 제12조 제1호, 제3호, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제171조, 제172조, 제178조
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