Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Exclusive Jurisdiction over an Action for Objection to Distribution Filed by a Bankruptcy Trustee Exercising the Right of Avoidance
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 16, 2021, 2019Ma6102 (ruling)
Case name: 배당이의
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a bankruptcy trustee, exercising the right of avoidance, files an action for objection to distribution seeking restitution, does the exclusive jurisdiction lie with the district court to which the bankruptcy court belongs or with the district court to which the executing court belongs?
Holding
Article 396 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not apply, and exclusive jurisdiction lies with the district court to which the executing court that conducted the distribution under the Civil Execution Act belongs. The Supreme Court placed weight on the purpose of exclusive jurisdiction over an action for objection to distribution, namely to prevent contradiction and conflict between judgments concerning the same distribution amount and to facilitate subsequent distribution proceedings.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
파산관재인이 부인권을 행사하면서 원상회복으로서 배당이의의 소를 제기한 경우에는 채무자회생법 제396조 제3항이 적용되지 않고, 민사집행법 제156조 제1항, 제21조에 따라 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원에 전속관할이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a bankruptcy trustee exercises the right of avoidance and brings an action seeking objection to distribution as restitution, Article 396, paragraph (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not apply, and it is reasonable to consider that the District Court to which the execution court that conducted the distribution under Article 156, paragraph (1) and Article 21 of the Civil Execution Act belongs has exclusive jurisdiction.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 제1심결정을 취소한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the court of first instance is set aside.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원에 전속관할이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
it is reasonable to consider that the District Court to which the execution court that conducted the distribution belongs has exclusive jurisdiction
Factors
- 관할 규정의 문언과 취지
- 배당이의의 소와 부인의 소의 본질과 관계
- 당사자 간의 공평이나 편의, 예측가능성
- 기대가능한 재판의 적정, 신속, 판결의 실효성
Unofficial English translation
• The wording and purpose of the jurisdiction provisions
• The nature of an action seeking objection to distribution and an action for avoidance and the relationship between them
• Fairness and convenience between the parties, and predictability
• The propriety and expedition of adjudication that can be expected, and the effectiveness of judgments
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
채무자회생법 제396조 제3항이 적용되지 않고
Unofficial English translation
Article 396(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not apply
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the same principle of exclusive jurisdiction apply where the manager in rehabilitation proceedings exercises the right of avoidance and files an action for objection to distribution?
If the jurisdiction provisions of Article 396 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or Article 156 of the Civil Execution Act are amended, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI line (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 5 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 4 (Form of the test), axis 6 (Relation to precedent), and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text sets out the jurisdictional rules that follow from a particular form of action while considering various circumstances as their basis, the first reading may focus on the elements for application, while the independent reading may focus on the mode of comprehensive reasoning.
민사집행법과 채무자회생법의 위 관할 규정의 문언과 취지, 배당이의의 소와 부인의 소의 본질과 관계, 당사자 간의 공평이나 편의, 예측가능성, 배당이의의 소와 부인의 소가 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원이나 파산계속법원에서 진행될 때 기대가능한 재판의 적정, 신속, 판결의 실효성 등을 고려하면Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The fact that the original text expressly sorts out the relationship of application between the two exclusive jurisdiction provisions may be read as setting a new standard, but the fact that it does not clarify its relation to earlier decisions may be read as making that relation impossible to determine.
채무자회생법 제396조 제3항이 적용되지 않고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the same principle of exclusive jurisdiction apply where the manager in rehabilitation proceedings exercises the right of avoidance and files an action for objection to distribution?” vs Independent “Is exclusive jurisdiction in favor of the district court to which the executing court belongs also recognized where the bankruptcy trustee seeks restitution by means other than an objection to distribution?”
The first reading asks whether the same principle applies to an action for objection to distribution brought by a manager in rehabilitation proceedings, while the independent reading asks about jurisdiction where the bankruptcy trustee seeks restitution by other means.
파산관재인이 부인권을 행사하면서 원상회복으로서 배당이의의 소를 제기한 경우에는 채무자회생법 제396조 제3항이 적용되지 않고, 민사집행법 제156조 제1항, 제21조에 따라 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원에 전속관할이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다.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 of first instance transferred to the Seoul Rehabilitation Court, the bankruptcy court, the action seeking correction of the distribution table that the appellant, a bankruptcy trustee, had filed in the Seoul Northern District Court, to which the executing court belongs, and the court below (Seoul Northern District Court, 2018Ra1099) dismissed the appellant's immediate appeal against a ruling challenging that transfer order.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the action at issue is an action for objection to distribution over which the Seoul Northern District Court has exclusive jurisdiction, and that the court below committed an error of law by misapprehending the legal principle on exclusive jurisdiction. Holding that the record was sufficient for it to adjudicate the merits itself, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the court below and set aside the first-instance order that had transferred the case for want of jurisdiction.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases in which the bankruptcy trustee exercises the right of avoidance by an avoidance action or an avoidance claim, unrelated to the distribution proceedings
- Cases seeking restitution of unjust enrichment or the like after the distribution has been completed, rather than an objection to distribution
- Cases in which another jurisdictional provision may be at issue, such as where the manager in rehabilitation proceedings exercises the right of avoidance
Record verification notes
Before contesting jurisdiction, confirm whether the form of the action is an action for objection to distribution seeking correction of the distribution table, and whether another creditor's action for objection to distribution concerning the same distribution amount is pending.
From the official text
Points at issue
파산관재인이 부인권을 행사하면서 원상회복으로서 배당이의의 소를 제기한 경우, 민사집행법 제156조 제1항, 제21조에 따라 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원에 전속관할이 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a bankruptcy trustee exercises the right of avoidance and brings an action seeking objection to distribution as restitution, whether the District Court to which the execution court that conducted the distribution under Article 156, paragraph (1) and Article 21 of the Civil Execution Act belongs has exclusive jurisdiction (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
배당이의의 소는 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원의 관할에 전속한다(민사집행법 제21조, 제156조 제1항). 한편 파산관재인은 소, 부인의 청구 또는 항변의 방법으로 부인권을 행사할 수 있는데, 부인의 소와 부인의 청구 사건은 파산계속법원의 관할에 전속한다[채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제396조 제3항, 제1항]. 민사집행법과 채무자회생법의 위 관할 규정의 문언과 취지, 배당이의의 소와 부인의 소의 본질과 관계, 당사자 간의 공평이나 편의, 예측가능성, 배당이의의 소와 부인의 소가 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원이나 파산계속법원에서 진행될 때 기대가능한 재판의 적정, 신속, 판결의 실효성 등을 고려하면, 파산관재인이 부인권을 행사하면서 원상회복으로서 배당이의의 소를 제기한 경우에는 채무자회생법 제396조 제3항이 적용되지 않고, 민사집행법 제156조 제1항, 제21조에 따라 배당을 실시한 집행법원이 속한 지방법원에 전속관할이 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 제1심결정을 취소한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the court of first instance is set aside.
Provisions referred to
민사집행법 제21조, 제156조 제1항, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제396조 제1항, 제3항
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. 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