Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Effect of a discharge on a debt acknowledged outside the repayment plan
Supreme Court, Sept. 9, 2021, 2020Da277184 (judgment)
Case name: 채무인수금중일부청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a debtor, after the opening of personal rehabilitation proceedings and before the finality of the discharge decision, expressed an intention to repay the personal rehabilitation debt separately from the repayment plan, does the effect of the discharge decision extend to that debt as well?
Holding
Yes, in principle. Article 625(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act means that a discharged debtor is released from liability on the personal rehabilitation creditors' claims except what has been repaid under the repayment plan, and a discharged claim loses the power to sue. Where a debtor promised before the finality of the discharge decision to pay the personal rehabilitation debt separately from the repayment plan, the discharge reaches that promise as well, unless special circumstances make the resulting debt a wholly new and separate debt with no substantial identity with the original one; allowing liability to survive finality would defeat the purpose of the discharge system.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 채무자가 면책결정 확정 전에 변제계획과 별도로 개인회생채무를 변제하겠다는 취지의 의사를 표시한 경우, 이로 인한 채무가 실질적으로 개인회생채무와 동일성이 없는 완전히 새로운 별개 채무라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 원래의 개인회생채무와 동일하게 면책결정의 효력이 미친다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, where the debtor, before the discharge order becomes final and conclusive, expresses an intention to repay the individual rehabilitation debt separately from the repayment plan, unless there are special circumstances warranting that the resulting debt be regarded as a completely new and separate debt that does not substantially share its identity with the individual rehabilitation debt, it must be regarded that the effect of the discharge order extends to the debt in the same manner as to the original individual rehabilitation debt.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기한다. 제1심판결을 취소하고, 이 사건 소를 각하한다. 소송총비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The judgment of the court of first instance is set aside, and the action in this case is dismissed on procedural grounds (without prejudice). The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the litigation.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이로 인한 채무가 실질적으로 개인회생채무와 동일성이 없는 완전히 새로운 별개 채무라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 원래의 개인회생채무와 동일하게 면책결정의 효력이 미친다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances warranting that the resulting debt be regarded as a completely new and separate debt that does not substantially share its identity with the individual rehabilitation debt, it must be regarded that the effect of the discharge order extends to the debt in the same manner as to the original individual rehabilitation debt.
Factors
- 개인회생절차가 개시된 후 면책결정 확정 전에
- 변제계획과 별도로 개인회생채무를 변제하겠다는 취지의 의사를 표시한 경우
- 이로 인한 채무가 실질적으로 개인회생채무와 동일성이 없는 완전히 새로운 별개 채무라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 채권자들에 대하여 공평한 변제를 확보함과 아울러 지급불능 또는 그럴 염려가 있는 상황에 처한 채무자에 대하여 경제적 재기와 회생의 기회를 부여하고자 하는 데에 있다
Unofficial English translation
• after the individual rehabilitation proceedings were commenced but before the discharge order became final and conclusive
• where the debtor expresses an intention to repay the individual rehabilitation debt separately from the repayment plan
• unless there are special circumstances warranting that the resulting debt be regarded as a completely new and separate debt that does not substantially share its identity with the individual rehabilitation debt
• lies in securing fair repayment for creditors, as well as granting debtors who are in a state of insolvency or in danger thereof an opportunity for economic rehabilitation and recovery
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 7. 25. 자 2018마6313 결정(공2019하, 1651)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Ma6313 decided July 25, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 1651)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도8549 판결(공2007하, 2089), 대법원 2019. 7. 25. 자 2018마6313 결정(공2019하, 1651)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make the debt the debtor took on by promising separate repayment a wholly new debt with no substantial identity with the personal rehabilitation debt?
A later decision defining which circumstances break the identity between the new debt and the personal rehabilitation debt would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 625(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 decision does not state the disposition or the reasoning of the appellate judgment of 18 September 2020 (2019Na74807). The reasons record only the facts of the case, from which the plaintiff's claim concerned the debt the defendant took on by writing the undertaking of 10 April 2015. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment, cancelled the first-instance judgment and dismissed the suit.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court examined the case of its own motion. It found that the debt the defendant took on by writing the undertaking was aimed at partial repayment of the original debt, the personal rehabilitation debt, separate from the repayment plan, so that the discharge decision of 25 July 2018, which was then final, covered it as well. A claim to enforce an already discharged debt lacks any interest in the protection of rights and is therefore improper, so the Court dispensed with the appeal grounds, reversed the appellate judgment under Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, cancelled the first-instance judgment and dismissed the suit, with all Justices concurring.
Distinguishing conditions
- A debt whose special circumstances show that it is a wholly new and separate debt with no substantial identity with the personal rehabilitation debt, since the discharge reaches the promise only where such circumstances are absent.
- A statement made after the discharge decision has already become final, since the rule turns on an intention expressed before finality.
- A promise that is not aimed at partial repayment of the personal rehabilitation debt, so that it is not repayment of that debt separate from the repayment plan.
Record verification notes
Set the promise against the plan: confirm that the proceedings had been opened, that the promise came before the discharge decision was final, and that it served repayment of the rehabilitation debt itself. Then look for what would make the new debt genuinely separate, since the Court relied only on the absence of special circumstances. Confirm also that the discharge decision has in fact become final, because the Court reasoned that liability surviving finality of the discharge decision would defeat the purpose of the discharge system.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자가 개인회생절차가 개시된 후 면책결정 확정 전에 변제계획과 별도로 개인회생채무를 변제하겠다는 취지의 의사를 표시한 경우, 위 채무에도 면책결정의 효력이 미치는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the effect of a discharge order extends also to a debt where, after the individual rehabilitation proceedings were commenced but before the discharge order became final and conclusive, the debtor expressed an intention to repay the individual rehabilitation debt separately from the repayment plan (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제625조 제2항 본문은 면책을 받은 채무자는 변제계획에 따라 변제한 것을 제외하고 개인회생채권자에 대한 채무에 관하여 그 책임이 면제된다고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 면책이라 함은 채무 자체는 존속하지만 채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이다. 따라서 면책된 채권은 통상의 채권이 가지는 소제기 권능을 상실하게 된다. 채무자회생법이 개인회생절차에서 채무자를 위한 면책제도를 둔 취지는 채권자들에 대하여 공평한 변제를 확보함과 아울러 지급불능 또는 그럴 염려가 있는 상황에 처한 채무자에 대하여 경제적 재기와 회생의 기회를 부여하고자 하는 데에 있다. 이를 통하여 채무자는 개인회생채무로 인한 압박을 받거나 의지가 꺾이지 않은 채 앞으로 경제적 회생을 위한 노력을 할 수 있게 된다. 만일 채무자가 개인회생절차가 개시된 후 면책결정 확정 전에 개인회생채권자에게 ‘변제계획과 별도로 개인회생채무를 변제하겠다.’는 취지의 의사를 표시한 경우에 면책결정이 확정된 이후에도 채무자에게 개인회생채무 전부나 일부를 이행할 책임이 존속한다고 보게 되면, 이는 앞서 본 면책제도의 취지에 반한다. 따라서 채무자가 면책결정 확정 전에 변제계획과 별도로 개인회생채무를 변제하겠다는 취지의 의사를 표시한 경우, 이로 인한 채무가 실질적으로 개인회생채무와 동일성이 없는 완전히 새로운 별개 채무라고 볼 만한 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 원래의 개인회생채무와 동일하게 면책결정의 효력이 미친다고 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기한다. 제1심판결을 취소하고, 이 사건 소를 각하한다. 소송총비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. The judgment of the court of first instance is set aside, and the action in this case is dismissed on procedural grounds (without prejudice). The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the litigation.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제625조 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