Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Estate bankruptcy and the deceased's retirement pension claim
Supreme Court, Jan. 4, 2024, 2022Da285097 (judgment)
Case name: 퇴직연금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a bankruptcy procedure over an estate, does Article 383(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act exclude non-attachable property from the bankruptcy estate, so that the deceased's retirement pension claim under the Act on the Protection of Employees' Retirement Benefits stays out of it, and may the Supreme Court still reach the substance of a small-claims appeal where no precedent exists?
Holding
It does not apply as a matter of principle. The provisions of the Act that govern bankruptcy where the debtor is an individual do not carry over as they stand into a procedure whose debtor is the estate itself, which Article 389(1) defines as all property belonging to it. The deceased's retirement pension claim is, unless there are special circumstances, not part of the bankruptcy estate, because Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Employees' Retirement Benefits bars attachment of the whole right in order to secure the worker's and the family's stable old age; and where no Supreme Court precedent exists on the interpretation, many small-claims cases pending below turn on it and the benches decide it differently, the Court may still decide the error in the substance, even without the ground of a decision contrary to its own precedent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
퇴직급여법상 피상속인의 퇴직급여채권은 피상속인의 상속재산을 채무자로 하는 상속재산파산절차에서 일반적인 압류금지재산과 달리 특별한 사정이 없는 한 파산재단에 속하지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
the decedent's claim to retirement benefits under the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits must be regarded, unlike property exempt from seizure in general, as not belonging to the bankruptcy estate in bankruptcy proceedings for an estate of a decedent in which the decedent's estate is the debtor, unless there are special circumstances.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 퇴직급여법의 목적과 취지, 입법을 통하여 퇴직급여법상 퇴직급여채권에 대해서는 민사집행법상 일반적인 압류금지채권에 비해 압류금지의 범위를 확대시킨 점 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
Considering the purpose and purview of the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits as described above and the fact that, through legislation, the scope of exemption from seizure for claims to retirement benefits under the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits was expanded as compared with general claims exempt from seizure under the Civil Execution Act, among other matters,
Factors
- 상속재산 자체에 파산능력을 인정하여 채무초과상태의 상속재산을 엄격한 절차에서 공평하게 청산할 수 있도록 하기 위한 절차로서
- 파산재단의 범위에 관한 별도의 독립된 규정을 두었다
- 피상속인 및 그 가족의 최소한의 생계를 보장하려는 사회적·정책적 요청에 근거한 압류금지재산의 경우에는 그 취지가 참작되어야 한다
- 퇴직급여법상 퇴직급여채권에 대해서는 민사집행법상 일반적인 압류금지채권에 비해 압류금지의 범위를 확대시킨 점
- 재판부에 따라 엇갈리는 판단을 하는 사례가 나타나고 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• as a procedure designed to recognize bankruptcy capacity for an estate of a decedent itself and to liquidate an insolvent estate of a decedent fairly under strict procedures
• a separate and independent provision governing the scope of the bankruptcy estate was established
• in the case of property exempt from seizure based on the social and policy demand to guarantee the minimum livelihood of the decedent and his or her family, its purpose must be taken into account
• the scope of exemption from seizure for claims to retirement benefits under the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits was expanded through legislation as compared with general claims exempt from seizure under the Civil Execution Act
• a case where divergent decisions are being rendered depending on the bench
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 1. 14. 선고 2020다207444 판결(공2021상, 370)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da207444 decided January 14, 2021 (Gong 2021 Sang, 370)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2021. 1. 14. 선고 2020다207444 판결(공2021상, 370) / [2] 대법원 2014. 1. 23. 선고 2013다71180 판결(공2014상, 480)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make it manifestly unreasonable or unjust to keep the deceased's retirement pension claim out of the bankruptcy estate of an estate bankruptcy procedure?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on this defined-benefit pension claim will show how the exception left open is applied. Any amendment to Article 383(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Employees' Retirement Benefits, or a later decision on Supreme Court review of small-claims appeals, would call for this entry to be read again.
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 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading treats the standard as a comprehensive weighing of factors, while the independent reading treats it as a set of stated requirements; both describe the same reasoning from different angles.
퇴직급여법상 피상속인의 퇴직급여채권은 피상속인의 상속재산을 채무자로 하는 상속재산파산절차에서 일반적인 압류금지재산과 달리 특별한 사정이 없는 한 파산재단에 속하지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.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 27 September 2022 (2021Na65806), held that the deceased's defined-benefit retirement pension claim was in principle included in the bankruptcy estate of the estate bankruptcy procedure. It accepted an exception for property needed to maintain the minimum livelihood of the dependants of the deceased, but held that the plaintiff, the trustee appointed in that procedure, had not discharged the proof on that point, and so included the claim in the estate.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this claim bars attachment of the whole right for the social and policy purpose of protecting the worker and the family, so it is property whose ban on attachment is wider than ordinary non-attachable property, and it stays out of the estate unless special circumstances make its exclusion manifestly unreasonable or productive of unjust results. The court below decided inclusion on the stated circumstances alone, misunderstanding the law on the scope of the bankruptcy estate in an estate bankruptcy procedure, on non-attachable property and on the burden of proof, and failing to examine what it needed to. The whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- Bankruptcy where the debtor is an individual, since Article 383(1) governs that procedure as written and the Court confined its reading to a procedure whose debtor is the estate itself.
- A claim whose protection from attachment rests on the ordinary rules of the Civil Execution Act, such as retirement pay claims protected only up to half of the claim under Article 246(1)(iv) and (v).
- A case where special circumstances show that keeping the claim out of the bankruptcy estate would be manifestly unreasonable or produce unjust results.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the procedure is a bankruptcy of the estate rather than of an individual debtor, since the reasoning turns on the estate itself being the debtor. Then match the claim against Article 7 of the Act on the Protection of Employees' Retirement Benefits and against the half-measure in Article 246(1)(iv) and (v) of the Civil Execution Act, and identify any special circumstances the trustee pleads for inclusion, because the Court left that exception open. If the route to review is the small-claims ground, gather what shows no precedent on the point and divergent judgments below.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 않았더라도 대법원이 실체법 해석적용의 잘못에 관하여 판단할 수 있는 경우 [2] 압류금지재산을 파산재단에서 제외하고 있는 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제383조 제1항이 상속재산파산절차에도 적용되는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 근로자퇴직급여 보장법상 피상속인의 퇴직급여채권이 상속재산파산절차에서 파산재단에 속하는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] A case where, even if the requirements for a ground for final appeal in a small-claims case, namely, "a case in which a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered," are not met, the Supreme Court may rule on an error in the interpretation and application of substantive law [2] Whether Article 383 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which excludes property exempt from seizure from the bankruptcy estate, also applies to bankruptcy proceedings for an estate of a decedent (in principle, negative) and whether the decedent's claim to retirement benefits under the Act on the Guarantee of Employees' Retirement Benefits belongs to the bankruptcy estate in bankruptcy proceedings for an estate of a decedent (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 소액사건에서 구체적 사건에 적용할 법령의 해석에 관한 대법원 판례가 아직 없는 상황에서 같은 법령의 해석이 쟁점으로 되어 있는 다수의 소액사건들이 하급심에 계속되어 있을 뿐 아니라 재판부에 따라 엇갈리는 판단을 하는 사례가 나타나고 있는 경우, 소액사건이라는 이유로 대법원이 법령의 해석에 관하여 판단을 하지 않은 채 사건을 종결하고 만다면 국민생활의 법적 안정성을 해칠 우려가 있다. 이와 같은 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 않았다고 하더라도 법령해석의 통일이라는 대법원의 본질적 기능을 수행하는 차원에서 실체법 해석적용의 잘못에 관하여 판단할 수 있다. [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’이라 한다)은 “상속재산으로 상속채권자 및 유증을 받은 자에 대한 채무를 완제할 수 없는 때에는 법원은 신청에 의하여 결정으로 파산을 선고한다.”라고 규정하여(제307조), 개인인 채무자에 대한 파산절차와 별도로 상속재산 자체에 대한 파산절차를 두었다. 상속재산파산절차는 상속재산 자체에 파산능력을 인정하여 채무초과상태의 상속재산을 엄격한 절차에서 공평하게 청산할 수 있도록 하기 위한 절차로서, 이에 대하여 “상속재산에 대하여 파산선고가 있는 때에는 이에 속하는 모든 재산을 파산재단으로 한다.”라고 정함으로써(제389조 제1항), 채무자가 개인인 경우와 달리 파산재단의 범위에 관한 별도의 독립된 규정을 두었다. 이와 같이 상속재산 자체를 채무자로 보는 상속재산파산절차의 성질·목적·취지 등을 종합하면, 채무자가 개인인 경우에 적용되는 채무자회생법의 규정들이 상속재산파산절차에 그대로 적용된다고 보기는 어려우므로, “압류할 수 없는 재산은 파산재단에 속하지 아니한다.”라고 정한 채무자회생법 제383조 제1항 역시 상속재산파산절차에는 원칙적으로 적용되지 않는다고 봄이 타당하다. 그러나 상속재산파산절차에서도 피상속인 및 그 가족의 최소한의 생계를 보장하려는 사회적·정책적 요청에 근거한 압류금지재산의 경우에는 그 취지가 참작되어야 한다. 즉, 채권의 2분의 1에 해당하는 금액에 대해서만 압류를 금지하는 민사집행법 제246조 제1항 제4·5호에서 정한 퇴직금채권·퇴직연금채권과 비교하여 근로자퇴직급여 보장법(이하 ‘퇴직급여법’이라 한다) 제7조는 “퇴직연금제도(중소기업퇴직연금기금 제도 포함)의 급여를 받을 권리는 양도 또는 압류하거나 담보로 제공할 수 없다.”라고 규정하여 퇴직연금수급권 전액에 관하여 압류가 금지되는바, 이는 퇴직급여제도의 설정·운영을 통해 마련된 경제적 수입이 근로자 본인은 물론 그 가족의 안정적 노후생활을 보장하는 기초가 되도록 하려는 사회적·정책적 고려 등에 따른 것이다. 이러한 퇴직급여법의 목적과 취지, 입법을 통하여 퇴직급여법상 퇴직급여채권에 대해서는 민사집행법상 일반적인 압류금지채권에 비해 압류금지의 범위를 확대시킨 점 등을 종합하면, 퇴직급여법상 피상속인의 퇴직급여채권은 피상속인의 상속재산을 채무자로 하는 상속재산파산절차에서 일반적인 압류금지재산과 달리 특별한 사정이 없는 한 파산재단에 속하지 아니한다고 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 소액사건심판법 제3조 제2호 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제307조, 제383조 제1항, 제389조 제1항, 민사집행법 제246조 제1항 제4호, 제5호, 근로자퇴직급여 보장법 제7조
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