Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
A final discharge as no ground of objection to a later attachment order
Supreme Court, Nov. 5, 2021, 2021Ma251 (ruling)
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: 채권압류및전부명령
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the finality of a discharge decision under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act constitute a lawful ground of objection to a creditor attachment and sweeping order applied for and issued after that finality on the basis of an enforceable copy of an execution title covering the discharged debt?
Holding
No. A final discharge decision does not of itself take away the effect of an execution title for the discharged debt; it is only a substantive ground for excluding the title's enforceability by an action to exclude enforcement. Nor is its finality a ground of hindrance to an attachment and sweeping order applied for and issued after it became final, so the debtor's reliance on it is not a lawful ground of objection.
Points at issue, verbatim
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에 따른 면책결정이 확정되었다는 사정이 면책된 채무에 관한 집행력 있는 집행권원 정본에 기하여 그 확정 후 신청되어 발령된 채권압류 및 전부명령에 대한 적법한 항고이유가 되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the fact that a discharge order under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act has become final and conclusive may constitute a valid ground for an appeal against a ruling from a garnishment order and assignment order, which was applied for and issued after such finality, on the basis of an authenticated copy of an enforceable title in respect of the discharged debt (negative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 울산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
채권압류 및 전부명령에 대한 즉시항고는 집행력 있는 정본의 유무와 그 송달 여부, 집행개시요건의 존부, 집행장애사유의 존부 등과 같이 채권압류 및 전부명령을 할 때 집행법원이 조사하여 준수할 사항에 관한 흠을 이유로 할 수 있을 뿐이고, 집행채권의 소멸 등과 같은 실체상의 사유는 이에 대한 적법한 항고이유가 되지 아니한다
Unofficial English translation
An immediate appeal against a ruling from a garnishment order and assignment order may be taken only on the ground of defects in matters that the enforcement court must examine and comply with when issuing the garnishment order and assignment order, such as the existence or non-existence of an enforceable authenticated copy and whether it has been served, the existence or non-existence of the requirements for commencing enforcement, and the existence or non-existence of obstacles to enforcement, whereas substantive grounds such as extinguishment of the enforcement claim cannot constitute a valid ground for an appeal against a ruling therefrom.
Factors
- 면책결정이 확정되었다는 사정이
- 면책된 채무에 관한 집행력 있는 집행권원 정본에 기하여
- 그 확정 후 신청되어 발령된 채권압류 및 전부명령에 대한
- 적법한 항고이유가 되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• the fact that the discharge order has become final and conclusive,
• on the basis of an authenticated copy of an enforceable title in respect of the discharged debt,
• in respect of a garnishment order and assignment order that was applied for and issued after such finality,
• may constitute a valid ground for an appeal against a ruling (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 9. 16. 자 2013마1438 결정(공2013하, 2103)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Ma1438 decided September 16, 2013 (Gong 2013 Ha, 2103)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1997. 4. 28. 자 97마360, 361 결정(공1997상, 1612), 대법원 2013. 9. 16. 자 2013마1438 결정(공2013하, 2103)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
To what extent does Article 557 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act restrict an attachment and sweeping order on a discharged debt?
A later Supreme Court decision on Article 557 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or on what an action to exclude enforcement achieves after a discharge has become final, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 557, Article 566 of that Act, or Article 227(4) and 229(6) of the Civil Execution Act.
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 “To what extent does Article 557 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act restrict an attachment and sweeping order on a discharged debt?” vs Independent “Would the debtor obtain exclusion of enforcement through a separate action objecting to the claim in this case?”
The primary reading asks how far Article 557 of the Act restricts such attachment orders. The independent reading asks whether the debtor could obtain exclusion of enforcement through a separate objection action in this case.
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에 따른 면책결정이 확정되었다는 사정이 면책된 채무에 관한 집행력 있는 집행권원 정본에 기하여 그 확정 후 신청되어 발령된 채권압류 및 전부명령에 대한 적법한 항고이유가 되는지 여부(소극)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 Ulsan District Court, in its decision of 27 July 2021 (2021Ra23), held that where a bankruptcy and discharge application has been made, a creditor attachment and sweeping order based on a bankruptcy claim must be restricted under Article 557 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. It reasoned that when the enforcement court overlooked that the application came during the discharge procedure and only then discovered it, it had to cancel the enforcement already begun ex officio, so it set aside the first-instance decision approving the court-officer's act and dismissed the application for the order.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that a final discharge is not a ground of hindrance to an attachment and sweeping order started after it became final, and that the debtor's argument to that effect was not a lawful ground of objection. It therefore found that the court below had misread the scope of Article 557 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and the law on grounds of objection, with an effect on the ruling, and reversed and remanded, with the concurrence of all participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An attachment and sweeping order applied for and issued before the discharge decision became final, a situation this decision does not address; the court below applied Article 557 on the footing that the enforcement application was made during the discharge procedure, and was reversed for it.
- An objection resting on a defect in what the enforcement court must examine, such as the absence or non-service of an enforceable copy or the absence of the conditions for starting enforcement.
- An action to exclude enforcement, by which the substantive ground of the final discharge is raised against the execution title's enforceability rather than in a direct objection to the order.
Record verification notes
Fix the date on which the discharge decision became final and the date on which the attachment and sweeping order was applied for and issued, since the rule turns on the enforcement having started after that finality. Then check which execution titles the creditor relied on and when each was made enforceable, and whether the objection was framed as a defect the enforcement court had to examine or as extinguishment of the execution claim.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에 따른 면책결정이 확정되었다는 사정이 면책된 채무에 관한 집행력 있는 집행권원 정본에 기하여 그 확정 후 신청되어 발령된 채권압류 및 전부명령에 대한 적법한 항고이유가 되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the fact that a discharge order under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act has become final and conclusive may constitute a valid ground for an appeal against a ruling from a garnishment order and assignment order, which was applied for and issued after such finality, on the basis of an authenticated copy of an enforceable title in respect of the discharged debt (negative)
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
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 울산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Ulsan District Court.
Provisions referred to
민사집행법 제227조 제4항, 제229조 제6항, 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