Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Set-off agreements that survive one party's rehabilitation proceedings
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2024Da228630 (judgment)
Case name: 수수료청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where parties agreed that fee-return claims arising from terminated or overdue supply contracts would be set off against the monthly commissions payable under one consignment sales contract, and the party entitled to receive those commissions entered and completed rehabilitation proceedings, does the failure to file those return claims as rehabilitation claims leave the set-off clause without effect?
Holding
Parties may agree on the conditions for set-off, the time point at which its effect arises and whether a separate declaration is needed, provided the agreement does not breach a mandatory provision. Where the two agreed claims are linked, allowing the set-off after rehabilitation proceedings have been opened does not circumvent Article 145 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, so the agreement stays valid. On these facts the fee-return claim of KRW 608,900,000 likely satisfied the conditions for set-off before the plan confirmation date, so the failure to file it as a rehabilitation claim did not change the extinguishing effect; the court below had to fix the range of claims and obligations subject to settlement and examine whether any part of it was set off, and only the amount that would have been set off had the monthly commissions been paid on time may be set off.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
당사자가 공제의 대상으로 약정한 양 채권 사이에 견련성이 인정된다면, 일방 당사자에 대하여 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에서 정한 회생절차가 개시된 경우라 하더라도 그 약정에 따라 공제를 허용하는 것이 회생채권자 등의 상계를 금지하고 예외적으로만 허용하는 강행규정인 같은 법 제145조의 취지를 잠탈한다고 볼 수 없으므로 해당 공제약정은 여전히 유효하다.
Unofficial English translation
If a connection exists between the two claims that the parties agreed upon as the subject of set-off, even where rehabilitation proceedings as provided in the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act have been commenced against one party, allowing set-off in accordance with that agreement cannot be regarded as circumventing the purport of Article 145 of the same Act, which is a mandatory provision prohibiting set-off by rehabilitation creditors and others and permitting it only exceptionally, and accordingly the set-off agreement remains valid.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 피고 패소 부분 중 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 수수료 환수금 공제 주장에 관한 부분(608,900,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below finding against the defendant, concerning the assertion of deduction of the commission recovery amount arising from delinquency in monthly installment payments and lapse of the contract (the portion of 608,900,000 won and the delayed damages thereon), is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
당사자는 강행규정에 반하지 않는 한 공제에 관한 약정을 할 수 있고, 공제의 요건을 어떻게 설정할 것인지, 기준시점을 언제로 할 것인지, 공제의 의사표시가 별도로 필요한지 등을 자유롭게 정하여 당사자 사이에 그 효력을 발생시킬 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
Insofar as they do not contravene mandatory provisions, the parties may agree on set-off and may freely determine how the requirements for set-off are to be established, when the reference time is to be, whether a separate manifestation of intent of set-off is required, and the like, so as to make such an agreement effective between themselves
Factors
- 강행규정에 반하지 않는 한 공제에 관한 약정을 할 수 있고
- 당사자가 공제의 대상으로 약정한 양 채권 사이에 견련성이 인정된다면
- 회생채권자 등의 상계를 금지하고 예외적으로만 허용하는 강행규정인 같은 법 제145조의 취지를 잠탈한다고 볼 수 없으므로
- 수수료 반환채권은 회생계획인가결정이 있기 전에 이미 공제의 요건을 충족함으로써 정해진 기준시점에 공제의 효과가 발생하였을 가능성이 크고
Unofficial English translation
• parties may agree on set-off insofar as it does not contravene mandatory provisions, and
• if a connection exists between the two claims that the parties agreed upon as the subject of set-off,
• it cannot be regarded as circumventing the purport of Article 145 of the same Act, which is a mandatory provision prohibiting set-off by rehabilitation creditors and others and permitting it only exceptionally, and accordingly,
• the claim for return of commissions is highly likely to have already satisfied the requirements for set-off before the approval order for the rehabilitation plan was made, so that the effect of set-off arose at the prescribed reference time, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 8. 1. 선고 2024다227699 판결(공2024하, 1574)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2024Da227699 decided August 1, 2024 (Gong 2024 Ha, 1574)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2024. 8. 1. 선고 2024다227699 판결(공2024하, 1574), 대법원 2025. 7. 18. 선고 2022다311736 판결(공2025하, 1488)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would make such a set-off clause contravene Article 145 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and become invalid?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the KRW 608,900,000 and its default interest will show how the range of claims subject to settlement is fixed. A later decision construing Article 145 or Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or an amendment to either article, 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) · 2026-10-24
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 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record the burden of proof as not addressed, so the flagged divergence likely comes from the standard-form axis (requirement listing versus application to the facts) rather than from burden.
회생계획인가결정이 있기 전에 이미 공제의 요건을 충족함으로써 정해진 기준시점에 공제의 효과가 발생하였을 가능성이 크고Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What special circumstances would make such a set-off clause contravene Article 145 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and become invalid?” vs Independent “Which refund claims actually satisfied the agreed deduction conditions before plan approval, and in what amounts?”
The primary asks what special circumstances would make the clause violate Article 145, while the independent asks which refund claims satisfied the deduction conditions before plan approval and in what amounts.
당사자가 공제의 대상으로 약정한 양 채권 사이에 견련성이 인정된다면, 일방 당사자에 대하여 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에서 정한 회생절차가 개시된 경우라 하더라도 그 약정에 따라 공제를 허용하는 것이 회생채권자 등의 상계를 금지하고 예외적으로만 허용하는 강행규정인 같은 법 제145조의 취지를 잠탈한다고 볼 수 없으므로 해당 공제약정은 여전히 유효하다.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: In the judgment below, the Seoul High Court held that the claims for fees recoverable on arrears of monthly instalments and on the lapse of the contracts were rehabilitation claims, and that nothing showed the defendant had filed them in the plaintiff's rehabilitation proceedings. It therefore applied Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, held that the plaintiff was released from liability so that the claims were forfeited, and concluded that the defendant could not set the KRW 608,900,000 off against the commissions payable.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this misapprehended the law on set-off and on debtor rehabilitation and left the necessary examination undone. The two claims were highly linked because they arose from a single consignment sales contract and were meant to be settled by setting them off against each other, so unless the defendant declared a claim under the performance payment guarantee insurance, the defendant's monthly commission payment and the plaintiff's fee-return obligation extinguished each other to the extent of their equal amount without a separate declaration by the defendant. The Court reversed that part of the judgment and remanded, directing the court below to fix the range of claims and obligations subject to settlement and examine whether any part of the KRW 608,900,000 was set off, while noting that only the amount that would have been set off had the commissions been paid on time may be set off.
Distinguishing conditions
- A set-off agreement that breaches Article 145 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act or another mandatory provision, since the Court upheld the clause only in the absence of such special circumstances.
- Two claims agreed as the subject of set-off between which no link is recognised, since the Court's reasoning rests on the high degree of linkage between them.
- Any part of the fee-return amount accruing after the payment due date of the monthly commission, which the Court said cannot be set off because it would not have been set off in time.
Record verification notes
Read the set-off clause together with the supplementary agreement, since the recovery ratio there varies with the period for which the supply contract was kept. Then fix each monthly commission's payment due date and ask what return amount had already accrued by that date, because the Court limited set-off to that amount. Finally check whether the defendant had exercised its right to claim under the performance payment guarantee insurance, which keeps automatic set-off from operating.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 강행법규에 반하지 않는 공제약정의 효력(유효) 및 당사자가 공제의 대상으로 약정한 양 채권 사이에 견련성이 인정되는 경우, 일방 당사자에 대하여 회생절차가 개시되었더라도 해당 공제약정이 여전히 유효한지 여부(적극) [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 주식회사가, 갑 회사로 하여금 을 회사가 판매하는 상품의 공급계약 체결을 중개하게 하고 을 회사는 갑 회사에 수수료를 지급하기로 하는 위탁판매계약을 체결하면서, 갑 회사의 중개로 체결된 상품 공급계약이 해지되거나 연체되었을 경우 을 회사는 갑 회사에 지급한 수수료를 환수하고, 환수금이 을 회사가 지급할 위탁수수료보다 많을 경우에는 당월 위탁수수료 지급액에서 전액 환수 후 미환수금액을 이월하거나 이행지급보증보험을 청구할 수 있다고 정하였는데, 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 위탁수수료 등의 지급을 구하는 소송 계속 중에 갑 회사에 대하여 회생개시결정이 내려졌고, 갑 회사에 대한 회생절차가 종결된 후 을 회사가 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 환수금이 갑 회사에 지급할 수수료에서 추가로 공제되어야 한다고 주장한 사안에서, 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 을 회사의 환수금 채권은 회생계획인가결정이 있기 전에 이미 공제의 요건을 충족함으로써 정해진 기준시점에 공제의 효과가 발생하였을 가능성이 크고, 이를 을 회사가 회생채권으로 신고하지 않았다는 이유만으로 공제약정에 따른 위탁수수료 지급채무와 수수료 반환채무 소멸의 효과가 달라진다고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a set-off agreement that does not contravene mandatory provisions is valid, and whether, where a connection exists between the two claims that the parties agreed upon as the subject of set-off, the set-off agreement remains valid even though rehabilitation proceedings have been commenced against one party (affirmative) [2] In a case where Company A and Company B concluded a commission sales agreement whereby Company A was to broker the conclusion of supply contracts for goods sold by Company B and Company B was to pay commissions to Company A, and it was agreed that where a supply contract for goods concluded through the brokerage of Company A was terminated or fell into arrears, Company B would recover from Company A the commissions paid to Company A, and where the amount recovered exceeded the consignment commissions payable by Company B, Company B would recover the entire amount from the consignment commission payment for the current month and carry over any unrecovered amount or claim under a performance payment guarantee insurance; and where, while a lawsuit in which Company A sought payment of consignment commissions, etc. from Company B was pending, a rehabilitation commencement decision was rendered against Company A, and after the rehabilitation proceedings against Company A were concluded, Company B asserted that the amounts to be recovered arising from delinquency in monthly installment payments and lapse of the contract should be additionally deducted from the commissions payable to Company A: a case where it was held that Company B's claim for recovery of amounts arising from delinquency in monthly installment payments and lapse of the contract is highly likely to have already satisfied the requirements for set-off before the approval order for the rehabilitation plan was made, so that the effect of set-off arose at the prescribed reference time, and that the fact that Company B did not report it as a rehabilitation claim cannot be regarded as changing the effect of extinguishment of the obligation to pay consignment commissions and the obligation to return commissions under the set-off agreement
Summary of the holding
[1] 계약자유의 원칙에 따라 당사자는 강행규정에 반하지 않는 한 공제에 관한 약정을 할 수 있고, 공제의 요건을 어떻게 설정할 것인지, 기준시점을 언제로 할 것인지, 공제의 의사표시가 별도로 필요한지 등을 자유롭게 정하여 당사자 사이에 그 효력을 발생시킬 수 있다. 당사자가 공제의 대상으로 약정한 양 채권 사이에 견련성이 인정된다면, 일방 당사자에 대하여 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에서 정한 회생절차가 개시된 경우라 하더라도 그 약정에 따라 공제를 허용하는 것이 회생채권자 등의 상계를 금지하고 예외적으로만 허용하는 강행규정인 같은 법 제145조의 취지를 잠탈한다고 볼 수 없으므로 해당 공제약정은 여전히 유효하다. [2] 갑 주식회사와 을 주식회사가, 갑 회사로 하여금 을 회사가 판매하는 상품의 공급계약 체결을 중개하게 하고 을 회사는 갑 회사에 수수료를 지급하기로 하는 위탁판매계약을 체결하면서, 갑 회사의 중개로 체결된 상품 공급계약이 해지되거나 연체되었을 경우 을 회사는 갑 회사에 지급한 수수료를 환수하고, 환수금이 을 회사가 지급할 위탁수수료보다 많을 경우에는 당월 위탁수수료 지급액에서 전액 환수 후 미환수금액을 이월하거나 이행지급보증보험을 청구할 수 있다고 정하였는데, 갑 회사가 을 회사를 상대로 위탁수수료 등의 지급을 구하는 소송 계속 중에 갑 회사에 대하여 회생개시결정이 내려졌고, 갑 회사에 대한 회생절차가 종결된 후 을 회사가 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 환수금이 갑 회사에 지급할 수수료에서 추가로 공제되어야 한다고 주장한 사안에서, 갑 회사와 을 회사는 하나의 위탁판매계약에서 발생하는 위탁수수료 지급과 수수료 반환에 관한 채권·채무 관계를 서로 가감하여 정산하기 위해 위와 같이 약정한 것으로서 을 회사의 위탁수수료 지급채무와 갑 회사의 수수료 반환채무는 그 이행에 있어 고도의 견련성이 인정되므로, 을 회사의 이행지급보증보험 청구의 의사표시가 없는 한 을 회사가 갑 회사에 매월 지급할 위탁수수료 금액에서 그 지급기일까지 발생한 수수료 반환금액은 당연히 공제되어 대등액에서 소멸하고, 이때 별도로 을 회사의 의사표시가 필요하지 않는데, 위 공제약정에 따르면 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 을 회사의 갑 회사에 대한 환수금 채권, 즉 수수료 반환채권은 회생계획인가결정이 있기 전에 이미 공제의 요건을 충족함으로써 정해진 기준시점에 공제의 효과가 발생하였을 가능성이 크고, 위 공제약정이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제145조에 반하여 위법하다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 회생계획인가결정 전에 이미 공제약정에 따른 효과가 발생하여 소멸한 채권을 을 회사가 회생채권으로 신고하지 않았다는 이유만으로 공제약정에 따른 위탁수수료 지급채무와 수수료 반환채무 소멸의 효과가 달라진다고 볼 수 없는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결의 피고 패소 부분 중 월불입금 연체 및 계약실효로 인한 수수료 환수금 공제 주장에 관한 부분(608,900,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금 부분)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below finding against the defendant, concerning the assertion of deduction of the commission recovery amount arising from delinquency in monthly installment payments and lapse of the contract (the portion of 608,900,000 won and the delayed damages thereon), is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제105조, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제145조 / [2] 민법 제105조, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제145조, 제251조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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