Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Appeal against refusal to appoint a liquidator
Supreme Court, June 9, 2022, 2022Geu538 (ruling)
Case name: 청산인의선임
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the 'ruling on appointment of a liquidator', against which Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act bars any application for reconsideration, include a decision dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator, and may the applicant appeal against such a dismissal under Article 20(1)?
Holding
It does not. Article 119 covers only the court's own ruling appointing a liquidator, and a decision dismissing an appointment application falls outside it, so the applicant may appeal against that dismissal under Article 20(1). Article 20(1) generally allows a person whose rights were infringed by a ruling to appeal, while Article 119 restricts that only in an individual provision; because the choice of who is to serve as liquidator lies within the court's free discretion, limiting reconsideration of an appointment ruling serves the aim of expediting liquidation, but an appeal against a dismissal contradicts no such aim, and barring it would restrict the means of correcting an unlawful dismissal and would risk obstructing the liquidation of a dissolved company.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is reasonable to construe that the "ruling on the appointment of a liquidator," for which an appeal against a ruling is prohibited under Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act, refers only to the court's decision appointing a liquidator and does not include the court's ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator.
Disposition
Other Stated in the decision
이 사건을 서울고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
This Case is transferred to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is reasonable to construe that the "ruling on the appointment of a liquidator," for which an appeal against a ruling is prohibited under Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act, refers only to the court's decision appointing a liquidator and does not include the court's ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator.
Factors
- 그 권리를 침해당한 자의 항고를 일반적으로 허용하고 있다
- 그 문언상 청산인 선임신청에 대한 기각결정까지 포함한다고 단정할 수 없다
- 청산인을 누구로 선임할 것인가는 법원의 자유재량에 속하므로
- 기각결정이 위법하더라도 그에 불복하여 위법을 시정할 수 있는 수단이 제한되어 해산된 회사의 청산절차 진행에 장애를 초래할 우려가 있다
Unofficial English translation
• an appeal against a ruling by the person whose right has been infringed is generally permitted
• it cannot be conclusively stated that, by its wording, it extends to a ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator
• as whom to appoint as liquidator falls within the free discretion of the court,
• even if the ruling of dismissal is unlawful, the means of contesting it and correcting the illegality are limited, raising a concern that it may hinder the progress of the liquidation proceedings of the dissolved company
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is reasonable to construe that the "ruling on the appointment of a liquidator," for which an appeal against a ruling is prohibited under Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act, refers only to the court's decision appointing a liquidator and does not include the court's ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does Article 119 also bar an appeal against a decision dismissing an application to dismiss a liquidator?
An amendment to Article 20(1) or Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act would require this entry to be read again. So would a later Supreme Court decision on whether the dismissal of an application to dismiss a liquidator falls within the ruling barred by Article 119.
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 marks the ruling as establishing a new standard (새 기준 제시), while the independent cannot confirm the precedent relation (확인 불가); the reading depends on whether the ruling's textual reasoning is seen as a new interpretive rule.
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does Article 119 also bar an appeal against a decision dismissing an application to dismiss a liquidator?” vs Independent “Was the dismissal of the liquidator appointment application substantively justified?”
The primary asks whether the bar also covers an appeal against dismissal of an application to appoint a liquidator, while the independent asks whether the dismissal of the appointment application was substantively correct.
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다.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 applicant, a shareholder of the company concerned, applied on 17 January 2022, on the ground that the company concerned had been dissolved by a dissolution order, for the appointment of a liquidator of the dissolved company under Articles 542 and 252 of the Commercial Act. The Seoul Western District Court, in its decision of 25 January 2022 (2022BiHap1002), dismissed the application on the ground that under Article 531(1) main sentence of the Commercial Act the directors at the time of dissolution become the liquidators. When the applicant filed a document headed 'Appeal' against that decision, that court read it as a special appeal and forwarded the record to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court decided ex officio. It held that the present challenge was an appeal against the first-instance decision dismissing the appointment application, so the competent court was the appellate court, the Seoul High Court, and that the first-instance court's act of forwarding the record straight to the Supreme Court as a special appeal was unlawful. Rather than quashing, it transferred the case to the Seoul High Court, on the unanimous view of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A challenge to the court's own ruling appointing a particular person as liquidator, since Article 119 bars reconsideration of that ruling.
- A challenge to a ruling on the dismissal of a liquidator, since the Court answered only the question on the appointment application.
- A filing by a person whose rights were not infringed by the ruling, since the right to appeal under Article 20(1) is given to the person whose rights the ruling infringed.
Record verification notes
Identify precisely which ruling is being challenged, the appointment ruling itself or the decision dismissing the application, because the answer turns on that line. Then confirm that the person appealing is the one whose rights the ruling infringed, and that the court the file was sent to is the appellate court over the first-instance court that made the ruling.
From the official text
Points at issue
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’에 청산인 선임신청 기각결정이 포함되는지 여부(소극) 및 신청인이 비송사건절차법 제20조 제1항에 따라 청산인 선임신청 기각결정에 대하여 항고할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a "ruling on the appointment of a liquidator," for which an appeal against a ruling is prohibited under Article 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act, includes a ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator (negative), and whether the applicant may file an appeal against a ruling dismissing an application for the appointment of a liquidator pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
비송사건절차법 제119조에서 불복신청을 금지하는 ‘청산인의 선임의 재판’은 법원의 청산인 선임결정만을 가리키고 법원의 청산인 선임신청 기각결정은 포함되지 않는다고 해석함이 타당하다. 따라서 신청인은 비송사건절차법 제20조 제1항에 따라 청산인 선임신청 기각결정에 대하여 항고할 수 있다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 비송사건절차법 제20조 제1항은 재판으로 인하여 권리를 침해당한 자는 그 재판에 대하여 항고할 수 있다고 규정하여 그 권리를 침해당한 자의 항고를 일반적으로 허용하고 있다. 반면 비송사건절차법 제119조는 청산인의 선임의 재판에 대하여 불복신청을 할 수 없다고 규정하여 개별조항에서 ‘청산인 선임의 재판’에 대한 불복을 제한하고 있다. 이러한 입법 형식 아래에서 개별조항인 비송사건절차법 제119조가 불복을 제한하는 ‘청산인 선임의 재판’은 그 문언상 청산인 선임신청에 대한 기각결정까지 포함한다고 단정할 수 없다. ② 청산인을 누구로 선임할 것인가는 법원의 자유재량에 속하므로, 청산절차를 신속하게 진행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 법원의 청산인 선임결정에 대하여는 불복신청을 제한할 필요가 있다. ③ 이와 달리 청산인 선임신청 기각결정에 대하여 불복을 허용하더라도 청산인 선임재판에 대한 불복제한 취지에 배치되지 않는다. 오히려 청산인 선임신청 기각결정에 대하여 항고를 금지하면 기각결정이 위법하더라도 그에 불복하여 위법을 시정할 수 있는 수단이 제한되어 해산된 회사의 청산절차 진행에 장애를 초래할 우려가 있다.
Order
이 사건을 서울고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
This Case is transferred to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
비송사건절차법 제20조 제1항, 제119조
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