Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Validity of a post-discharge agreement to repay a bankruptcy claim
Supreme Court, Sept. 9, 2021, 2020Da269794 (judgment)
Case name: 약정금등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
After a discharge ruling has become final, may a debtor and a bankruptcy creditor validly agree that the debtor will repay the discharged claim, and what criteria decide that validity?
Holding
Only to a limited extent. Because discharge leaves the debt itself in existence while removing any means of enforcing it against the debtor, an agreement to repay a discharged bankruptcy claim is difficult to recognise where it runs against the purpose of the discharge system or has the effect of evading a final discharge ruling. Even then, in deciding whether to give the agreement enforceability by judgment, the court must sufficiently consider whether it leaves the debtor's rehabilitation unimpeded, so that the agreement binds only where the debtor fully understood that the debt had been discharged, nevertheless undertook repayment of his or her own free will, and the agreement places no excessive burden on the debtor.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
즉, 채무재승인약정은 채무자가 면책된 채무를 변제한다는 점에 대해 이를 충분히 인식하였음에도 자신의 자발적인 의사로 위 채무를 변제하기로 약정한 것일 뿐 아니라 위 약정으로 인해 채무자에게 과도한 부담이 발생하지 않는 경우에 한하여 그 효력을 인정할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
That is, a debt reaffirmation agreement may be recognized as valid only where the debtor fully recognized that he or she was paying a debt of which he or she had been discharged, and yet agreed to pay the said debt of his or her own free will, and where, moreover, no excessive burden is imposed on the debtor by reason of the said agreement.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
채무재승인약정을 체결하게 된 동기 또는 목적, 채무재승인약정을 체결한 시기와 경위, 당시의 채무자의 재산·수입 등 경제적 상황을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
the matter must be determined by comprehensively considering the motive or purpose for entering into the debt reaffirmation agreement, the time and circumstances of its conclusion, and the debtor's economic circumstances at the time, such as his or her property and income.
Factors
- 면책제도의 취지에 반하거나 확정된 면책결정의 효력을 잠탈하는 결과를 가져온다면
- 면책제도의 입법 목적에 따라 위 약정이 채무자의 회생에 지장이 없는지 여부가 충분히 고려되어야 한다
- 채무자가 면책된 채무를 변제한다는 점에 대해 이를 충분히 인식하였음에도
- 자신의 자발적인 의사로 위 채무를 변제하기로 약정한 것일 뿐 아니라
- 위 약정으로 인해 채무자에게 과도한 부담이 발생하지 않는 경우에 한하여
Unofficial English translation
• if it runs counter to the purpose of the discharge system, or results in undermining the effect of a final discharge order
• whether the said agreement does not impede the rehabilitation of the debtor must be sufficiently considered in accordance with the legislative purpose of the discharge system
• even though the debtor fully recognized that he or she was paying a debt of which he or she had been discharged,
• and agreed to pay the said debt of his or her own free will,
• only where, moreover, no excessive burden is imposed on the debtor by reason of the said agreement
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015다28173 판결(공2015하, 1492)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173 decided September 10, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1492)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도8549 판결(공2007하, 2089), 대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015다28173 판결(공2015하, 1492)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What degree of burden on the debtor turns a post-discharge repayment agreement into one imposing an excessive burden, and how much income must remain for rehabilitation to be unimpeded?
The remand judgment by the Daegu District Court, once it finds whether the defendant agreed voluntarily and whether the loan certificates burdened him excessively, will show how these criteria work in practice. A later Supreme Court decision fixing the content of the voluntariness or excessive burden test, or a change to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, 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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “면책제도의 취지에 반하거나 확정된 면책결정의 효력을 잠탈하는 결과를 가져온다면 / 면책제도의 입법 목적에 따라 위 약정이 채무자의 회생에 지장이 없는지 여부가 충분히 고려되어야 한다 / 채무자가 면책된 채무를 변제한다는 점에 대해 이를 충분히 인식하였음에도 / 자신의 자발적인 의사로 위 채무를 변제하기로 약정한 것일 뿐 아니라 / 위 약정으로 인해 채무자에게 과도한 부담이 발생하지 않는 경우에 한하여” vs Independent “채무재승인약정을 체결하게 된 동기 또는 목적 / 채무재승인약정을 체결한 시기와 경위 / 당시의 채무자의 재산·수입 등 경제적 상황”
The primary reading lists the conditions for validity (awareness, voluntariness, no excessive burden, rehabilitation), while the independent reading lists the considerations for assessing those conditions (motive, timing and circumstances, economic situation). Their central elements differ.
채무재승인약정을 체결하게 된 동기 또는 목적Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The excerpt shows no citation of earlier decisions, so the primary reading's 'follows existing precedent' cannot be confirmed from the text, and the independent reading's 'cannot confirm' is the more cautious reading of the same gap.
대법원 2015. 9. 10. 선고 2015다28173 판결(공2015하, 1492)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 Daegu District Court, in its judgment of 2 September 2020 (2019Na324815), enforced the promise embodied in the second loan certificate dated 21 January 2019, by which the defendant undertook to borrow KRW 90,000,000, repay KRW 1,000,000 on the 28th of each month, and pay KRW 180,000,000 if two payments were missed. No money under the certificate's stated sums had actually been advanced, and the court relied on the circumstances it set out alone, without examining whether the defendant had agreed voluntarily or whether the terms imposed an excessive burden on him.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this was a misapprehension of the law on the validity of an agreement to repay after discharge, which affected the outcome. The defendant disputed that he had written the loan certificates under pressure from the plaintiff's demands, so the court below should have examined further, beyond the circumstances it relied on, whether he agreed of his own free will and whether the terms placed an excessive burden on him. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court for renewed hearing and determination, unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- An agreement that runs against the purpose of the discharge system or evades the effect of a final discharge ruling, since the Court regards such an agreement as difficult to recognise.
- An agreement the debtor did not enter of his or her own will, such as one made under the creditor's persistent demands, because voluntariness is a condition of validity.
- An agreement whose terms place an excessive burden on the debtor, so that the debtor's economic rehabilitation is impeded.
Record verification notes
Set the file against three things before relying on this decision: what shows that the debtor fully understood the debt had been discharged when signing, what the creditor did or said at the time, and the debtor's assets and income when the agreement was made. The Court weighed the motive or purpose, the time and circumstances of the agreement and the debtor's economic situation together, so a finding on one alone will not decide it. Remember that the Court here sent the case back without ruling on the two loan certificates themselves.
From the official text
Points at issue
면책결정 확정 후 파산채권을 변제하기로 하는 채무자와 파산채권자 사이의 합의의 효력을 인정할 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극) 및 이를 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
Whether the effect of an agreement between a debtor and a bankruptcy creditor under which the debtor agrees to pay a bankruptcy claim after a discharge order has become final may be recognized (limited, affirmative), and the criteria for making that determination
Summary of the holding
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라고 한다) 제566조 본문은 면책을 받은 개인채무자는 파산절차에 의한 배당을 제외하고는 파산채권자에 대한 채무의 전부에 관하여 그 책임이 면제된다고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 면책이라 함은 채무 자체는 존속하지만 파산채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이다. 채무자회생법이 파산절차에서 개인채무자를 위한 면책제도를 둔 취지는 채권자들에 대하여 공평한 변제를 확보함과 아울러 지급불능 상태에 빠진 개인채무자에 대하여 경제적 재기와 회생의 기회를 부여하고자 하는 데에 있다. 이를 통하여 개인채무자는 파산채무로 인한 압박을 받거나 의지가 꺾이지 않은 채 앞으로 경제적 회생을 위한 노력을 할 수 있게 된다. 채무자의 재산을 환가·배당함으로써 채권자들 사이의 적정하고 공평한 만족을 도모하는 개인파산절차에서도 채무자의 경제적 회생은 도모되어야 한다. 이는 채무자가 파산선고 이후에도 잔여 채무에 대한 무제한의 책임을 지게 되는 경우 오로지 채권자에 대한 채무변제를 위해서만 경제활동을 해야 하는 극단적 상황을 방지하여야 한다는 요청에 따른 것이다. 따라서 면책결정 확정 후 파산채권을 변제하기로 하는 채무자와 파산채권자 사이의 합의(이하 ‘채무재승인약정’이라고 한다)가 면책제도의 취지에 반하거나 확정된 면책결정의 효력을 잠탈하는 결과를 가져온다면 그 효력을 인정하기 어렵다. 나아가 채무재승인약정의 효력을 인정하여 판결을 통해 집행력을 부여할 것인지 여부를 판단할 때에는 면책제도의 입법 목적에 따라 위 약정이 채무자의 회생에 지장이 없는지 여부가 충분히 고려되어야 한다. 즉, 채무재승인약정은 채무자가 면책된 채무를 변제한다는 점에 대해 이를 충분히 인식하였음에도 자신의 자발적인 의사로 위 채무를 변제하기로 약정한 것일 뿐 아니라 위 약정으로 인해 채무자에게 과도한 부담이 발생하지 않는 경우에 한하여 그 효력을 인정할 수 있다. 이때 채무자가 자발적으로 채무재승인약정을 체결한 것인지, 채무재승인약정의 내용이 채무자에게 과도한 부담을 초래하는지 여부는 채무재승인약정을 체결하게 된 동기 또는 목적, 채무재승인약정을 체결한 시기와 경위, 당시의 채무자의 재산·수입 등 경제적 상황을 종합적으로 고려하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조
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