Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Discharge and the secured creditor's loss of the right to sue
Supreme Court, May 15, 2025, 2022Da256327 (judgment)
Case name: 대여금[개인회생절차의 별제권자인 근저당권자가 별제권에 의해 우선변제가 예상되는 피담보채권 부분에 대하여 이행을 소구한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does 'discharge' in the main clause of Article 625(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act mean that the debt itself continues but cannot be enforced against the debtor, and may a former secured creditor still sue the debtor for performance of the original individual rehabilitation claim once the discharge decision under Article 624 has become final?
Holding
No. Discharge means the debt itself continues but performance cannot be enforced against the debtor, so a discharged individual rehabilitation claim loses the right to bring an action that an ordinary claim has. Article 625(2) proviso (i) preserves only claims not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation claims, and does not exclude a secured creditor's claim, so where that claim is entered in the list the discharge decision under Article 624 reaches it; the former secured creditor may only execute the security right under Articles 586 and 411 and may not sue for performance of the former claim even though it was not paid through that execution.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여기서 말하는 면책이란 채무 자체는 존속하지만 채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이므로 면책된 개인회생채권은 통상의 채권이 가지는 소 제기 권능을 상실하게 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Discharge here means that the debt itself continues to exist but performance thereof cannot be enforced against the debtor; accordingly, an individual rehabilitation claim that has been discharged loses the capacity to bring an action that an ordinary claim possesses.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그러므로 별제권자가 채무자에 대하여 가지는 개인회생채권이 개인회생채권자목록에 기재되어 있는 한, 같은 법 제624조에 따른 면책결정의 효력은 별제권자의 개인회생채권에도 미친다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, provided that the individual rehabilitation claim held by the holder of a right of separate satisfaction against the debtor is entered in the List of Individual Rehabilitation Claimants, the effect of the discharge order under Article 624 of the same Act extends also to the holder of a right of separate satisfaction's individual rehabilitation claim.
Factors
- 채무 자체는 존속하지만 채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이므로
- 면책된 개인회생채권은 통상의 채권이 가지는 소 제기 권능을 상실하게 된다
- ‘개인회생채권자목록에 기재되지 아니한 청구권’에 관하여는 면책결정에도 불구하고 책임이 면제되지 아니한다고 규정하고 있으나
- 별제권 행사를 통하여 채권의 변제를 받지 못하였더라도
- 같은 법 제586조, 제411조에 따라 그 담보권을 실행할 수 있을 뿐
Unofficial English translation
• means that the debt itself continues to exist but performance thereof cannot be enforced against the debtor; accordingly,
• an individual rehabilitation claim that has been discharged loses the capacity to bring an action that an ordinary claim possesses
• provides that, as for a 'claim not entered in the List of Individual Rehabilitation Claimants,' liability is not exempted notwithstanding the discharge order, but
• even if payment of the claim has not been obtained through the exercise of the right of separate satisfaction,
• the security interest may be enforced only pursuant to Articles 586 and 411 of the same Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 7. 25. 자 2018마6313 결정(공2019하, 1651)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court DECISION 2018Ma6313 decided July 25, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 1651)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2019. 7. 25. 자 2018마6313 결정(공2019하, 1651)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the secured creditor's claim is removed from the list of individual rehabilitation claims after the discharge decision has become final, what effect does that have on the former creditor's ability to sue for performance?
Any later decision treating a secured creditor's claim omitted from the list, or a claim whose discharge was denied, differently would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 624, Article 625(2), Article 586 or Article 411 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act would have the same effect.
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 secured creditor's claim is removed from the list of individual rehabilitation claims after the discharge decision has become final, what effect does that have on the former creditor's ability to sue for performance?” vs Independent “What legal consequences follow if the debtor voluntarily pays the surviving debt after discharge?”
The primary reading asks about the effect of removing the claim from the list after discharge, while the independent reading asks about legal consequences of the debtor's voluntary payment after discharge.
여기서 말하는 면책이란 채무 자체는 존속하지만 채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이므로 면책된 개인회생채권은 통상의 채권이 가지는 소 제기 권능을 상실하게 된다.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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 8 June 2022 (2021Na31919), held that the plaintiff's loan claim was a property claim arising from a cause before the commencement of individual rehabilitation and therefore an individual rehabilitation claim, that it had been entered in the list of individual rehabilitation claims and confirmed, and that once the repayment plan was approved and the discharge decision against the defendant became final, the defendant's liability was discharged and the claim lost the right to sue that an ordinary claim has. The plaintiff could still execute the mortgage, for instance by applying for a discretionary auction, but could not sue for performance of the loan claim. On the alternative claim, the court below held that it lacked any interest in confirmation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in either holding. Reading the reasons against the governing law and the record, it held that the court below had not failed to examine what was needed, violated the rules of logic and experience, misstated the law on the security right and the effect of the discharge decision, or misstated the law on interruption of limitation and interest in confirmation, so as to affect the judgment. Supreme Court Decision 2014Da32014, cited by the plaintiff, concerned a housing tenant's claim for return of the deposit who had a right of priority payment but no right to apply for auction, and was distinguishable. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim that was never entered in the list of individual rehabilitation claims, since Article 625(2) proviso (i) preserves liability for such a claim even after a discharge decision.
- A case in which the discharge decision under Article 624 has not yet become final, since the effect the Court described follows only from finality.
- A claim pursued not as performance of the individual rehabilitation claim but as execution of the security right under Articles 586 and 411, which the Court expressly preserved for the former secured creditor.
Record verification notes
Establish from the rehabilitation file whether the claim was entered in the list of individual rehabilitation claims and the date on which the discharge decision became final, since those are the requirements the holding turns on. The plaintiff's failure to apply for adjudication of the rehabilitation claim within the objection period is a fact of this case that the decision records, not a condition the Court stated. Then keep the route under Articles 586 and 411 apart from the discharged claim, and note that the alternative claim was rejected for lack of interest in confirmation, with the Supreme Court remarking that parts of that reasoning were not entirely appropriate.
From the official text
Points at issue
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제625조 제2항 본문에서 말하는 ‘면책’의 의미 및 같은 법 제624조에 따라 면책결정이 확정된 경우, 별제권자였던 자가 채무자를 상대로 종전 개인회생채권의 이행을 소구할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Meaning of 'discharge' as used in the main text of Article 625(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and whether, when a discharge order has become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 624 of the same Act, a person who formerly held a right of separate satisfaction may sue the debtor for performance of the former individual rehabilitation claim (negative)
Summary of the holding
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다) 제625조 제2항 본문은 "면책을 받은 채무자는 변제계획에 따라 변제한 것을 제외하고 개인회생채권자에 대한 채무에 관하여 그 책임이 면제된다."라고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 말하는 면책이란 채무 자체는 존속하지만 채무자에 대하여 이행을 강제할 수 없다는 의미이므로 면책된 개인회생채권은 통상의 채권이 가지는 소 제기 권능을 상실하게 된다. 한편 채무자회생법 제625조 제2항 단서 제1호에서 ‘개인회생채권자목록에 기재되지 아니한 청구권’에 관하여는 면책결정에도 불구하고 책임이 면제되지 아니한다고 규정하고 있으나, 별제권자가 채무자에 대하여 가지는 개인회생채권을 면책에서 제외되는 청구권으로 규정하고 있지는 않다. 그러므로 별제권자가 채무자에 대하여 가지는 개인회생채권이 개인회생채권자목록에 기재되어 있는 한, 같은 법 제624조에 따른 면책결정의 효력은 별제권자의 개인회생채권에도 미친다. 따라서 별제권자가 별제권 행사를 통하여 채권의 변제를 받지 못하였더라도 같은 법 제624조에 따라 면책결정이 확정된 이상 별제권자였던 자로서는 같은 법 제586조, 제411조에 따라 그 담보권을 실행할 수 있을 뿐 채무자를 상대로 종전 개인회생채권의 이행을 소구할 수는 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제411조, 제586조, 제624조, 제625조 제2항, 민사소송법 제248조[소의 제기]
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