Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Article 174(1) inapplicable where only the disputed secured claim has an enforceable title
Supreme Court, Aug. 31, 2023, 2021Da234528 (judgment)
Case name: 채권조사확정재판에대한이의의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an enforceable title or a final judgment exists only for the claim underlying a disputed rehabilitation secured claim, and not for the security itself, does Article 174(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act bar the holder from applying for claim-determination proceedings?
Holding
No. Article 174(1) respects the procedural position of a holder who already has an enforceable title or final judgment, by letting the objecting party litigate only through the proceedings available to the debtor; that position is not held where the title reaches only the underlying claim, because a rehabilitation secured claim also needs the existence of the pledge to be examined. The Court also held that Article 48(3) of the Medical Service Act, which requires the permission of the mayor or governor for a medical corporation to dispose of its property or amend its articles, is a mandatory provision.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이의가 있는 회생담보권의 피담보채권에 관하여만 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 존재하는 경우에는 그 권리자가 회생담보권 확정절차에서 다른 회생담보권자보다 유리한 절차적 지위를 갖는다고 볼 수 없어 채무자회생법 제174조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Where an enforceable execution title or final judgment exists only with respect to the secured claim of a rehabilitation security right to which an objection has been raised, the holder of that right cannot be regarded as having a more favorable procedural position than other holders of rehabilitation security rights in the procedure for determining rehabilitation security rights, and therefore Article 174 paragraph (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act does not apply.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are to be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 없는 이의채권 등을 보유한 권리자에 비하여 유리한 지위에 있다.
Unofficial English translation
is in a more favorable position than a holder of a disputed claim, etc. for which no enforceable execution title or final judgment exists.
Factors
- 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 있는 이의채권 등을 보유한 권리자의 절차적 지위를 존중하여
- 그 권리자가 회생담보권 확정절차에서 다른 회생담보권자보다 유리한 절차적 지위를 갖는다고 볼 수 없어
- 회생담보권으로 확정하기 위해서는 피담보채권의 존부 및 범위뿐만 아니라 담보권의 존부 등에 대하여도 심리·판단할 필요가 있기 때문이다
- 의료법인이 그 재산을 부당하게 감소시키는 것을 방지함으로써
Unofficial English translation
• In deference to the procedural position of a holder of a disputed claim, etc. for which an enforceable execution title or final judgment exists,
• because the holder of that right cannot be regarded as having a more favorable procedural position than other holders of rehabilitation security rights in the procedure for determining rehabilitation security rights,
• because, in order to determine the right as a rehabilitation security right, it is necessary to examine and determine not only the existence and scope of the secured claim but also the existence of the security interest, among other matters,
• by preventing a medical corporation from improperly diminishing its property,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 2. 4. 선고 2018다304380, 304397 판결(공2021상, 490)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Da304380, 304397 decided February 4, 2021 (Gong 2021 Sang, 490)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2021. 2. 4. 선고 2018다304380, 304397 판결(공2021상, 490) / [2] 대법원 2021. 11. 25. 선고 2019다277157 판결(공2022상, 86)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the enforceable title covers only part of the underlying claim, is the holder still outside the more favourable procedural position, or does the partial title suffice?
A later decision on whether a title covering the establishment of the pledge attracts Article 174(1) would change this reading. Any amendment to Article 174(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or to Article 48(3) of the Medical Service Act would also require the entry to be read again.
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 “If the enforceable title covers only part of the underlying claim, is the holder still outside the more favourable procedural position, or does the partial title suffice?” vs Independent “How should Article 174(1) apply when an enforceable title or final judgment establishes both the underlying claim and the security interest?”
The primary asks about a title covering only part of the underlying claim, while the independent asks how Article 174(1) applies when a title covers both the claim and the security interest.
이의가 있는 회생담보권의 피담보채권에 관하여만 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 존재하는 경우에는 그 권리자가 회생담보권 확정절차에서 다른 회생담보권자보다 유리한 절차적 지위를 갖는다고 볼 수 없어 채무자회생법 제174조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다.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 Gwangju High Court, Jeonju Panel, in its judgment of 29 April 2021 (2020Na11815), held that the effect of the notarised deed reached only the loan claim, so the plaintiff's rehabilitation secured claim had no enforceable title and Article 174(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act did not apply, which made the plaintiff's application for claim-determination proceedings lawful. It also held that no evidence showed the permission of the mayor or governor had been obtained for disposing of the medical equipment, so the part of the transfer-security contract covering that equipment was void.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Against the law it had stated, the court below had not misread Article 174(1) or the provisions around it. On the medical equipment it noted that some of the reasons given were less apt, but held that the conclusion of invalidity was right, since the transfer-security over the equipment, which made up most of the medical facilities of the long-term care hospital the defendant ran, was a disposal of property under Article 48(3). It dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, with appeal costs on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the enforceable title or final judgment also reaches the establishment of the security itself, so that the holder is in the more favourable procedural position the Court described.
- A dispute over a rehabilitation claim, not a rehabilitation secured claim, where the Court's reasoning on the need to examine the existence of the pledge does not arise.
- A disposal of a medical corporation's property for which the permission of the mayor or governor was obtained, so that Article 48(3) of the Medical Service Act does not make it void.
Record verification notes
Check first what the enforceable title actually covers, by setting the wording of the notarised deed or judgment against the claim reported as a rehabilitation secured claim, and separate the underlying claim from the pledge. Then confirm that the debtor was a medical corporation and that the disputed property forms part of its assets, since Article 48(3) reaches a medical corporation's disposal of property or amendment of its articles. The Court cited Supreme Court Decision 2018Da304380, 304397 for the meaning of a rehabilitation secured claim and Supreme Court Decision 2019Da277157 for the mandatory character of Article 48(3), so read those decisions before relying on this entry elsewhere.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 이의가 있는 회생담보권의 피담보채권에 관하여만 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 존재하는 경우, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제174조 제1항이 적용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 의료법인이 재산을 처분하거나 정관을 변경하려면 시·도지사의 허가를 받아야 한다고 정하고 있는 의료법 제48조 제3항이 강행규정인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether Article 174 paragraph (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act applies where an enforceable execution title or final judgment exists only with respect to the secured claim of a rehabilitation security right to which an objection has been raised (negative) [2] Whether Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Medical Service Act, which provides that a medical corporation must obtain the permission of the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do Governor in order to dispose of its property or amend its articles of incorporation, is a mandatory provision (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제170조 제1항에 따르면, 이의가 있는 회생채권 또는 회생담보권(이하 회생채권과 회생담보권을 구별하지 않고 사용할 때는 ‘이의채권 등’이라 한다)에 관하여는 원칙적으로 이의채권 등을 보유한 권리자가 그 권리의 확정을 위하여 이의자를 상대로 채권조사확정의 재판을 신청하여야 한다. 그런데 이의채권 등에 관하여 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 있는 경우에는 그 권리자는 곧바로 강제집행에 착수할 수 있었거나 기판력 있는 재판 또는 적어도 권리의 존재에 관하여 고도의 개연성을 부여하는 재판을 받았으므로, 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 없는 이의채권 등을 보유한 권리자에 비하여 유리한 지위에 있다. 이에 채무자회생법 제170조 제1항 단서, 제174조 제1항은 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 있는 이의채권 등을 보유한 권리자의 절차적 지위를 존중하여 권리자가 먼저 채권조사확정의 재판을 신청하는 것이 아니라 이의자로 하여금 예컨대 청구이의의 소나 채무부존재확인의 소 등과 같이 채무자가 할 수 있는 소송절차에 의하여서만 이의를 주장할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 이의가 있는 회생담보권의 피담보채권에 관하여만 집행력 있는 집행권원 또는 종국판결이 존재하는 경우에는 그 권리자가 회생담보권 확정절차에서 다른 회생담보권자보다 유리한 절차적 지위를 갖는다고 볼 수 없어 채무자회생법 제174조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다. 회생담보권은 회생채권 중에서 유치권 등의 담보권에 의하여 담보된 범위의 채권을 의미하므로, 회생담보권으로 확정하기 위해서는 피담보채권의 존부 및 범위뿐만 아니라 담보권의 존부 등에 대하여도 심리·판단할 필요가 있기 때문이다. [2] 의료법 제48조 제3항은 “의료법인이 재산을 처분하거나 정관을 변경하려면 시·도지사의 허가를 받아야 한다.”라고 규정한다. 이는 의료법인이 그 재산을 부당하게 감소시키는 것을 방지함으로써 경영에 필요한 재산을 항상 갖추고 있도록 하여 의료법인의 건전한 발달을 도모하고 의료의 적정을 기하여 국민건강을 보호증진하게 하려는 데 목적이 있는 조항으로서 강행규정에 해당한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal are to be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제141조 제1항, 제170조 제1항, 제174조 제1항 [2] 의료법 제48조 제3항
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