Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Effect of a confirmed dismissal on a manager's termination of a contract
Supreme Court, June 16, 2022, 2022Da211850 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a manager has terminated a bilateral contract under Article 119(1) of the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtors, does the confirmation of a decision dismissing the rehabilitation proceedings affect the effect of that termination?
Holding
It does not. A decision dismissing the rehabilitation proceedings has no retroactive effect, whether it becomes final before or after approval of the rehabilitation plan, and where the manager terminates a bilateral contract under Article 119(1) of the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtors, the contract loses its effect conclusively. The confirmation of the dismissal decision after that point therefore leaves the effect of the termination untouched.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
회생절차폐지결정은 그 확정 시점이 회생계획 인가 이전 또는 이후인지에 관계없이 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항에 따라 관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 경우에는 종국적으로 계약의 효력이 상실되므로, 그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
A decision to close the rehabilitation proceedings is not given retroactive effect, regardless of whether the time it becomes final and conclusive falls before or after the approval of the rehabilitation plan; where the administrator rescinds or terminates a bilateral contract pursuant to Article 119 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the effect of the contract is ultimately lost, and therefore, even if a decision to close the rehabilitation proceedings becomes final and conclusive thereafter, it does not affect the effectiveness of the rescission or termination based on the foregoing provision.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 주위적 청구 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The remainder of the judgment of the court below, among the portions where the plaintiff lost, other than the portion concerning the principal claim, is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 경우에는 종국적으로 계약의 효력이 상실되므로
Unofficial English translation
where the administrator rescinds or terminates a bilateral contract, the effect of the contract is ultimately lost, and therefore
Factors
- 그 확정 시점이 회생계획 인가 이전 또는 이후인지에 관계없이 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고
- 관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 경우에는 종국적으로 계약의 효력이 상실되므로
- 그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• regardless of whether the time it becomes final and conclusive falls before or after the approval of the rehabilitation plan, retroactive effect is not recognized
• where the administrator rescinds or terminates a bilateral contract, the effect of the contract is ultimately lost, and therefore
• even if a decision to close the rehabilitation proceedings becomes final and conclusive thereafter, it does not affect the effectiveness of the rescission or termination based on the foregoing provision
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
even if a decision to close the rehabilitation proceedings becomes final and conclusive thereafter, it does not affect the effectiveness of the rescission or termination based on the foregoing provision.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a dismissal decision becomes final before the manager's declaration of termination reaches the counterparty, at what moment does the termination take effect?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the remaining part of the plaintiff's losing claim will show how the rule is applied to the parties' remaining issues. A later decision addressing the confirmation of a dismissal decision after approval of a rehabilitation plan, or a record showing, contrary to the Court's finding here, that the declaration of termination was not communicated, 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 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as setting out a new standard on the lack of retroactive effect, while the independent reading could not confirm a precedent relationship from the supplied text.
그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 않는다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a dismissal decision becomes final before the manager's declaration of termination reaches the counterparty, at what moment does the termination take effect?” vs Independent “How should restitution claims arising from the custodian's rescission be treated after rehabilitation proceedings are discontinued?”
The primary reading asks when termination takes effect if dismissal becomes final before the notice reaches the counterparty, while the independent reading asks how restitution claims are handled after discontinuance.
회생절차폐지결정은 그 확정 시점이 회생계획 인가 이전 또는 이후인지에 관계없이 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항에 따라 관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 경우에는 종국적으로 계약의 효력이 상실되므로, 그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 13 January 2022 (2021Na2003579), rejected the plaintiff's claim that the contract with the debtor company had been terminated or ended under Article 119(1) of the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtors. Its only stated reason was that Article 288(4) of that Act does not apply where the rehabilitation plan was not approved and the proceedings were dismissed before approval. The debtor company was Biobill Co., Ltd., a rehabilitation commencement decision had been made on 18 March 2019, and a dismissal decision was made on 11 March 2020 without plan approval and became final around that time.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the manager's declaration of termination reached the counterparty through service of the complaint and the preparatory writ of 28 August 2019, on which permission under Article 119(1) had been granted by the Seoul Bankruptcy Court on 21 May 2019, and that the contract had therefore lost its effect conclusively around that time. It found that the court below had misunderstood the construction of Article 119(1) and the effect of exercising the right of termination, and had failed to examine what it needed to, because it rejected the plaintiff's claim on the single ground that Article 288(4) does not apply. It reversed the whole of the plaintiff's losing part except the primary claim, remanded that part to the Seoul High Court, and dismissed the rest of the plaintiff's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the manager's declaration of termination under Article 119(1) was never communicated to the counterparty, since the Court relied on service of the complaint and the preparatory writ.
- A dispute over the validity or cancellation of the contract, since the Court treated the evidence-based arguments on that point as belonging to the exclusive authority of the trial court.
- The part of the claim the court below decided as a primary claim, which the Court left undisturbed by excluding it from the reversal.
Record verification notes
Set out the timeline first: the commencement decision of 18 March 2019, the permission to terminate of 21 May 2019, the service that carried the declaration, and the dismissal decision of 11 March 2020. Then separate the primary claim from the rest of the plaintiff's losing part, because only the latter was reversed and remanded. Check also whether the plan was ever approved and when the dismissal decision became final, keeping in mind that the Court gave the dismissal no retroactive effect whether it became final before or after approval.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항에 따라 관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정된 경우, 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에 영향을 미치는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where the administrator has rescinded or terminated a bilateral contract pursuant to Article 119 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and a decision to close the rehabilitation proceedings subsequently becomes final and conclusive, such affects the effectiveness of the rescission or termination based on the foregoing provision (negative)
Summary of the holding
회생절차폐지결정은 그 확정 시점이 회생계획 인가 이전 또는 이후인지에 관계없이 소급효가 인정되지 아니하고, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항에 따라 관리인이 쌍무계약을 해제·해지한 경우에는 종국적으로 계약의 효력이 상실되므로, 그 이후 회생절차폐지결정이 확정되더라도 위 조항에 근거한 해제·해지의 효력에는 영향을 미치지 않는다.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 주위적 청구 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The remainder of the judgment of the court below, among the portions where the plaintiff lost, other than the portion concerning the principal claim, is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제119조 제1항, 제286조, 제288조 제1항, 제4항
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