Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Discharge in bankruptcy reaching a tenant's whole deposit return claim
Supreme Court, June 12, 2025, 2022Da247378 (judgment)
Case name: 구상금등[개인파산절차에서 면책결정의 효력이 우선변제권 있는 임대차보증금반환청구권에 미치는지 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a discharge decision under Article 564 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act extend to the whole of a housing tenant's claim for return of the deposit, including the part enjoying a priority right, and may the tenant still sue the debtor for performance of that claim where the bankruptcy procedure was closed without even that part being paid and the discharge decision became final?
Holding
Yes on the first question and no on the second. Article 566 lists the claims for which a discharged debtor remains liable, and a housing tenant's claim for return of the deposit, including the part secured by a priority right under Article 415, is not among them, so the effect of a discharge decision under Article 564 reaches the whole of that claim. Even where the bankruptcy procedure was closed before even the priority part was paid and the discharge decision has become final, the tenant may only assert that priority against the proceeds of a later realisation of the house, and may not sue the debtor for performance of the claim.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
법 제564조에 의한 면책결정의 효력은 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분을 포함하여 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권 전부에 미친다.
Unofficial English translation
The effect of a discharge order under Article 564 of the Act extends to the entirety of a residential lessee's claim for the return of the security deposit, including the portion for which the right to preferential payment is recognized.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분과 이에 해당하는 구상금청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, and the portion concerning the claim for reimbursement corresponding thereto, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
주택임차인이 채무자에 대하여 가지는 보증금반환채권을 면책에서 제외되는 청구권으로 규정하고 있지 않고
Unofficial English translation
does not stipulate the claim for the return of the security deposit held by the residential lessee against the debtor as a claim excluded from discharge,
Factors
- 위 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분 역시 마찬가지이므로
- 법 제564조에 의한 면책결정의 효력은 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분을 포함하여 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권 전부에 미친다
- 주택임차인이 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분조차 변제받지 못한 상태에서 파산절차가 폐지되었다고 하더라도, 법 제564조에 의한 면책결정이 확정된 이상
- 주택임차인으로서는 이후 주택이 환가되는 경우 환가대금에 관하여 자신의 우선변제권을 주장할 수 있을 뿐 채무자를 상대로 보증금반환채권의 이행을 소구할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• The portion of the foregoing claim for the return of the security deposit for which the right to preferential payment is recognized is likewise no exception;
• the effect of a discharge order under Article 564 of the Act extends to the entirety of a residential lessee's claim for the return of the security deposit, including the portion for which the right to preferential payment is recognized;
• even though the bankruptcy proceedings have been closed while the residential lessee has not received payment even of the portion of the claim for the return of the security deposit for which the right to preferential payment is recognized, once the discharge order under Article 564 of the Act has become final and conclusive;
• the residential lessee may, thereafter, assert the right to preferential payment only with respect to the proceeds of realization in the event the housing is realized, and cannot bring an action against the debtor for performance of the claim for the return of the security deposit
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
법 제415조에서 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권에 관하여 우선변제권을 규정하였음에도 불구하고 주택임차인이 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분조차 변제받지 못한 상태에서 파산절차가 폐지되었다고 하더라도
Unofficial English translation
notwithstanding that Article 415 of the Act stipulates the right to preferential payment with respect to a residential lessee's claim for the return of the security deposit, even though the bankruptcy proceedings have been closed while the residential lessee has not received payment even of the portion of the claim for the return of the security deposit for which the right to preferential payment is recognized
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the discharge decision also reach the bankrupt landlord's future claim for recourse owed to the guarantor, which the landlord left off the creditor list although the guarantor's claim was secured by an assignment of the deposit return claim?
The remand judgment on the recourse claim the plaintiff pleaded in the alternative will show how the discharge treats a future recourse obligation omitted from the creditor list. Any amendment to Article 415 or Article 566, or a later decision holding the priority part of a deposit claim outside the effect of a discharge, 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 treats the holding as establishing a new standard, while the independent reading could not confirm precedent status. The independent reading may not have had the basis to judge whether the rule departs from earlier decisions.
법 제415조에서 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권에 관하여 우선변제권을 규정하였음에도 불구하고 주택임차인이 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분조차 변제받지 못한 상태에서 파산절차가 폐지되었다고 하더라도Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the discharge decision also reach the bankrupt landlord's future claim for recourse owed to the guarantor, which the landlord left off the creditor list although the guarantor's claim was secured by an assignment of the deposit return claim?” vs Independent “Through what procedure may the tenant enforce the surviving preferential right if the dwelling is realized after discharge?”
The primary asks whether discharge reaches a guarantor's future recourse claim that the landlord omitted from the creditor list, while the independent reading asks what procedure lets the tenant enforce the surviving priority after realisation.
법 제564조에 의한 면책결정의 효력은 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분을 포함하여 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권 전부에 미친다.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 Southern District Court, in its judgment of 9 June 2022 (2021Na72404), held that only the part of the deposit return claim outside the priority right recognised under Article 415(1) is a bankruptcy claim listed in the creditor list and covered by the discharge. On that basis it treated the assigned claim, to the extent of the priority right, as a non-dischargeable claim under Article 566(vii) as one the debtor had maliciously failed to list, and granted the plaintiff's claim for the amount paid, apart from part of the delay damages.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on the effect of discharge under Article 566. The deposit return claim was expressly entered on the creditor list the debtor submitted, so it could not be a claim maliciously left off that list under Article 566(vii), and the discharge covered the whole claim including the priority part. It also held that Supreme Court Decision 2014Da32014, relied on below, concerned an individual rehabilitation procedure under Article 625(2) proviso (i) and was not apt for this bankruptcy case, and reversed the defendant's losing part together with the corresponding recourse claim pleaded in the alternative.
Distinguishing conditions
- A deposit return claim the debtor in fact left off the creditor list through bad faith, which Article 566(vii) leaves non-dischargeable.
- A case in which the house has already been realised and the tenant asserts the priority right against the realisation proceeds, which the decision expressly leaves open to the tenant.
- An individual rehabilitation procedure governed by Article 625(2) proviso (i), since the Court held that line of authority unfit for bankruptcy.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the deposit return claim was entered on the creditor list the bankrupt submitted, since the whole reasoning turns on that fact. Then confirm the date the discharge decision became final and whether the bankruptcy procedure was closed before any payment, and see whether the house has been realised so that realisation proceeds exist against which the priority can be asserted. Keep the claim pleaded in the alternative apart, since the Court did not decide the remaining grounds of the appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제564조에 의한 면책결정의 효력이 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분을 포함하여 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권 전부에 미치는지 여부(적극) 및 주택임차인이 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분조차 변제받지 못한 상태에서 파산절차가 폐지되고 면책결정이 확정된 경우, 주택임차인이 채무자를 상대로 보증금반환채권의 이행을 소구할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the effect of a discharge order under Article 564 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act extends to the entirety of a residential lessee's claim for the return of the security deposit, including the portion for which the right to preferential payment is recognized (affirmative); and whether, where the bankruptcy proceedings have been closed and the discharge order has become final and conclusive while the residential lessee has not received payment even of the portion of the claim for the return of the security deposit for which the right to preferential payment is recognized, the residential lessee may bring an action against the debtor for performance of the claim for the return of the security deposit (negative)
Summary of the holding
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘법’이라고 한다) 제566조는 "면책을 받은 채무자는 파산절차에 의한 배당을 제외하고는 파산채권자에 대한 채무의 전부에 관하여 그 책임이 면제된다. 다만 다음 각호의 청구권에 대하여는 책임이 면제되지 아니한다."라고 규정하면서 각호에서 파산채권에 해당하는 법 제415조의 주택임대차보호법상 대항요건 및 확정일자를 갖춘 주택임차인이 채무자에 대하여 가지는 보증금반환채권을 면책에서 제외되는 청구권으로 규정하고 있지 않고, 위 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분 역시 마찬가지이므로, 법 제564조에 의한 면책결정의 효력은 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분을 포함하여 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권 전부에 미친다. 따라서 법 제415조에서 주택임차인의 보증금반환채권에 관하여 우선변제권을 규정하였음에도 불구하고 주택임차인이 보증금반환채권 중 우선변제권이 인정되는 부분조차 변제받지 못한 상태에서 파산절차가 폐지되었다고 하더라도, 법 제564조에 의한 면책결정이 확정된 이상 주택임차인으로서는 이후 주택이 환가되는 경우 환가대금에 관하여 자신의 우선변제권을 주장할 수 있을 뿐 채무자를 상대로 보증금반환채권의 이행을 소구할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분과 이에 해당하는 구상금청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, and the portion concerning the claim for reimbursement corresponding thereto, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제415조, 제564조, 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