Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Unjust enrichment against a surviving company under a rehabilitation plan
Supreme Court, June 29, 2023, 2021Da285090 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 회생계획상미이전자산액청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a new company established by division under an approved rehabilitation plan did not receive assets listed for transfer before its incorporation, and a separate wage claim was later collected from an account in the name of the surviving company, may the new company claim unjust enrichment against the surviving company under Article 741 of the Civil Act?
Holding
The new company may have such a claim. Where assets listed for transfer are withdrawn or set off before the plan is approved and the new company is established, without being reflected in the approved plan or remedied by a modification, the new company may lose the expected deposit while the surviving company acquires the deposit claim or is released from debt, which can constitute the required benefit under Article 741 of the Civil Act. A separate wage claim that the plan does not clearly assign to the new companies should not automatically be treated as their debt, so its collection from the surviving company's account may likewise found a claim in unjust enrichment.
Points at issue, verbatim
을 회사는 이전받을 것으로 예정되었던 예금 등을 수익하지 못하는 손해를 입었고 정 회사는 갑 회사 명의 예금 채권을 취득하거나 존속할 것으로 예상되었던 갑 회사 명의 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 보유하게 되었다고 볼 여지가 있으며, 회생계획의 해석상 병의 별개의 임금채권에 대하여 을 회사 등이 채무를 부담한다고 단정하기 어려운데도
Unofficial English translation
Company B suffered a loss in failing to obtain profits from the deposits, etc. that were scheduled to be transferred to it, and Company D came to hold benefits such as acquiring the deposit claims in the name of Company A or being released from the obligations in the name of Company A that were expected to remain, and yet, although it is difficult to definitively state that Company B and the like bear the obligations with respect to C's separate wage claims under the interpretation of the rehabilitation plan,
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 835,200,466원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as the plaintiff lost with respect to the portion of 835,200,466 KRW and the delay damages thereon, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
회생계획에 기재된 분할의 원칙과 승계 대상 권리와 의무의 내용, 분할회사의 존속 여부, 회생계획안을 작성한 관리인 및 이를 가결한 회생채권자 등 이해관계인들의 합리적 의사, 분할의 경위 및 분할에 의하여 달성하려는 목적, 거래의 관행 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 사회정의와 형평의 이념에 맞도록 논리와 경험의 법칙, 그리고 사회일반의 상식과 거래의 통념에 따라 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
It must be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the logic and the law of experience, and the common sense and the ordinary understanding of transactions prevailing in society, so as to conform to the ideals of social justice and equity, by comprehensively considering the principle of division stated in the rehabilitation plan and the contents of the rights and obligations to be succeeded to, whether the dividing company survives, the reasonable intentions of the administrator who prepared the draft rehabilitation plan and the rehabilitation creditors and other interested parties who approved it, the circumstances of the division and the purpose sought to be achieved thereby, and the practices of transactions, and the like
Factors
- 회생계획의 해석상 병의 별개의 임금채권에 대하여 을 회사 등이 채무를 부담한다고 단정하기 어려운데도, 을 회사의 부당이득반환청구를 배척한 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
- 을 회사는 이전받을 것으로 예정되었던 예금 등을 수익하지 못하는 손해를 입었고 정 회사는 갑 회사 명의 예금 채권을 취득하거나 존속할 것으로 예상되었던 갑 회사 명의 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 보유하게 되었다고 볼 여지가 있으며
- 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것이 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 채권의 취득도 ‘이익’에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
- 회생계획에 따른 회사분할에서 회생계획의 문언에 의하여 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 아니하여 해석을 둘러싸고 이견이 있는 경우, 어떠한 권리와 의무가 신설회사에 승계되는지 해석하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Although it is difficult to definitively state that Company B and the like bear the obligations with respect to C's separate wage claims under the interpretation of the rehabilitation plan, a case holding that the judgment of the court below rejecting Company B's claim for the return of unjust enrichment was in misapprehension of legal principles
• Company B suffered a loss in failing to obtain profits from the deposits, etc. that were scheduled to be transferred to it, and Company D came to hold benefits such as acquiring the deposit claims in the name of Company A or being released from the obligations in the name of Company A that were expected to remain, and
• Whether not suffering a loss that would have arisen automatically upon the occurrence of a certain fact, as in the case of being released from a debt, falls under the 'benefit' that is a requirement for unjust enrichment (affirmative), and whether the acquisition of a claim also falls under 'benefit' (affirmative)
• The method of interpreting which rights and obligations are succeeded to by the newly established company in a corporate division under a rehabilitation plan, where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the wording of the rehabilitation plan and differences of opinion arise as to its interpretation
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 7. 18. 선고 2016두41781 판결(공2017하, 1742)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du41781 decided July 18, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 1742)
Decisions referred to
[1][3] 대법원 2017. 7. 18. 선고 2016두41781 판결(공2017하, 1742) / [1] 대법원 2011. 8. 25. 선고 2010다44002 판결(공2011하, 1925) / [2] 대법원 1996. 11. 22. 선고 96다34009 판결(공1997상, 32), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다225978, 225985 판결(공2018상, 58)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the approved plan did not reflect the withdrawals and set-offs, is the restitution claim limited to KRW 815,177,326 itself, or must it be recalculated on the plan's valuation date and its basis of reflecting asset changes?
The Seoul High Court's remand judgment will show the scope and amount of restitution and whether the separate wage claim was properly excluded from the plan. A decision construing Article 272(1) and (4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or Article 530-10 of the former Commercial Act, or an amendment to Article 741 of the Civil Act, requires 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 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings say nothing about the burden of proof, so they do not diverge on this axis. The different wording in the standard (weighing overall versus applying to the facts) is a separate axis that enumDiffs does not list.
회생계획의 해석상 병의 별개의 임금채권에 대하여 을 회사 등이 채무를 부담한다고 단정하기 어려운데도, 을 회사의 부당이득반환청구를 배척한 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When the approved plan did not reflect the withdrawals and set-offs, is the restitution claim limited to KRW 815,177,326 itself, or must it be recalculated on the plan's valuation date and its basis of reflecting asset changes?” vs Independent “On further examination, is the surviving company liable in restitution for the entire remanded amount of KRW 835,200,466?”
The primary reading asks how the restitution amount is to be measured, namely whether it stays at KRW 815,177,326 or must be recalculated by the plan's valuation date. The independent reading asks whether the surviving company is liable for the full remanded KRW 835,200,466. The two are related but target different unresolved points.
을 회사는 이전받을 것으로 예정되었던 예금 등을 수익하지 못하는 손해를 입었고 정 회사는 갑 회사 명의 예금 채권을 취득하거나 존속할 것으로 예상되었던 갑 회사 명의 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 보유하게 되었다고 볼 여지가 있으며, 회생계획의 해석상 병의 별개의 임금채권에 대하여 을 회사 등이 채무를 부담한다고 단정하기 어려운데도Raw 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 30 September 2021 (2020Na2045736), dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the remaining assets. It held that the plaintiff had acquired all rights and obligations under the rehabilitation plan when it completed its incorporation registration, so it had no separate claim, and that it could itself proceed to change the depositor's name; no obligation to transfer remained and no damages for non-performance arose. It also held that the separate wage claim confirmed by a final judgment and unpaid before the division was borne by the plaintiff and the other new company, and rejected the unjust enrichment claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's finding that the debtor company had no remaining obligation to transfer the rest of the assets to the plaintiff. It held, however, that the High Court had misapplied the law on unjust enrichment in two respects: assets withdrawn or set off before approval and incorporation were not reflected in the approved plan, and the separate wage claim confirmed by a final judgment was not listed in the plan and was difficult to assign to the new companies. It reversed only KRW 835,200,466 and the related delay damages, remanded that part to the Seoul High Court, and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- The rehabilitation plan expressly assigns a separate wage claim to the new companies, so its objective meaning is clear and no interpretive dispute arises.
- The withdrawals and set-offs before incorporation were reflected in the plan's asset list and amount, or the plan was modified under its own error clause before the new company was established.
- Evidence shows that the new company's loss from the expected assets was later made good, since the Court relied on the absence of any such compensation.
Record verification notes
Set the approved plan, its Annex 5-17 and the transfer list against the account movements between August and September 2011, and keep KRW 815,177,326 separate from the KRW 20,023,140 collected in July 2014. Then check whether the plaintiff ever received compensation for the shortfall, because the Court relied on the absence of evidence that the loss had been made good. For the wage claim, compare the final judgment for KRW 40,879,200 with the amounts listed in Annex 5-17, and look for evidence of whether the employee was among the plaintiff's transferred employees or among those assigned to the surviving company.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 회생회사의 분할로 인하여 설립되는 신설회사는 회생계획이 정하는 바에 따라 회생회사의 권리와 의무를 승계하는지 여부(적극) [2] 채무를 면하는 경우와 같이 어떠한 사실의 발생으로 당연히 발생하였을 손실을 보지 않는 것이 부당이득이 성립하기 위한 요건인 ‘이익’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 채권의 취득도 ‘이익’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [3] 회생계획에 따른 회사분할에서 회생계획의 문언에 의하여 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 아니하여 해석을 둘러싸고 이견이 있는 경우, 어떠한 권리와 의무가 신설회사에 승계되는지 해석하는 방법 [4] 갑 주식회사의 회생절차에서 을 주식회사 등을 분할신설하고 자산을 이전하기로 하였으나 회생계획의 인가 및 을 회사의 설립등기 전에 을 회사에 이전하기로 한 자산 중 일부가 인출되거나 상계되었고, 을 회사의 설립 후에는 갑 회사의 분할 전까지 미변제된 공익채권에 해당하는 병의 임금채권이 추심되었는데, 을 회사가 분할존속회사인 정 주식회사를 상대로 위 금원 상당의 부당이득반환을 구한 사안에서, 을 회사는 이전받을 것으로 예정되었던 예금 등을 수익하지 못하는 손해를 입었고 정 회사는 갑 회사 명의 예금 채권을 취득하거나 존속할 것으로 예상되었던 갑 회사 명의 채무를 면하는 등의 이익을 보유하게 되었다고 볼 여지가 있으며, 회생계획의 해석상 병의 별개의 임금채권에 대하여 을 회사 등이 채무를 부담한다고 단정하기 어려운데도, 을 회사의 부당이득반환청구를 배척한 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a newly established company to be formed by the division of a company in rehabilitation succeeds to the rights and obligations of the company in rehabilitation as prescribed by the rehabilitation plan (affirmative) [2] Whether not suffering a loss that would have arisen automatically upon the occurrence of a certain fact, as in the case of being released from a debt, falls under the 'benefit' that is a requirement for unjust enrichment (affirmative), and whether the acquisition of a claim also falls under 'benefit' (affirmative) [3] The method of interpreting which rights and obligations are succeeded to by the newly established company in a corporate division under a rehabilitation plan, where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the wording of the rehabilitation plan and differences of opinion arise as to its interpretation [4] In the rehabilitation proceedings of Company A, it was decided to newly establish Company B, among others, by spin-off division and to transfer assets to it; however, prior to the approval of the rehabilitation plan and the incorporation registration of Company B, some of the assets scheduled to be transferred to Company B were withdrawn or set off, and after the incorporation of Company B, C's wage claim, which constituted a common benefit claim that remained unpaid until before the division of Company A, was collected. In a case where Company B sought from Company D, the surviving company after the division, the return of unjust enrichment in the amount equivalent to the said monies, there is room for regarding that Company B suffered a loss in failing to obtain profits from the deposits, etc. that were scheduled to be transferred to it, and that Company D came to hold benefits such as acquiring the deposit claims in the name of Company A or being released from the obligations in the name of Company A that were expected to remain, and yet, although it is difficult to definitively state that Company B and the like bear the obligations with respect to C's separate wage claims under the interpretation of the rehabilitation plan, a case holding that the judgment of the court below rejecting Company B's claim for the return of unjust enrichment was in misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 835,200,466원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as the plaintiff lost with respect to the portion of 835,200,466 KRW and the delay damages thereon, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 상법(2015. 12. 1. 법률 제13523호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제530조의10, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제272조 제1항, 제4항 [2] 민법 제741조 [3] 민법 제105조, 상법 제530조의10, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제272조 제1항, 제4항 [4] 구 상법(2015. 12. 1. 법률 제13523호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제530조의10, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제272조 제1항, 제4항, 민법 제105조, 제741조
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