Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
Legality of a creditor revocation action after a decision revoking bankruptcy becomes final, and whether the exclusion period runs during bankruptcy proceedings
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Mar. 13, 2025, 2024Da272590 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 사해행위취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If, while a creditor revocation action filed after a declaration of bankruptcy is pending, a decision revoking bankruptcy becomes final, does the action become legally valid, and does the exclusion period under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act run even while the bankruptcy proceedings continue?
Holding
Once the decision revoking bankruptcy becomes final, the bankruptcy creditor is released from the restrictions on the exercise of individual rights, and therefore the creditor revocation action is not improperly brought. The Supreme Court held, however, that the period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation is an exclusion period that is not interrupted or suspended and thus continues to run even during bankruptcy proceedings, and reversed the court below, which decided otherwise.
Points at issue, verbatim
이는 채무자에 대한 파산선고로 채권자취소의 소를 제기할 수 없는 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the same is likewise the case where a creditor revocation action cannot be filed due to the declaration of bankruptcy with respect to the debtor (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
앞서 본 사실관계를 위 법리에 비추어 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
Examining the facts as set out above in light of the foregoing legal principle
Factors
- 채무자에 대한 파산폐지결정이 확정된 경우
- 파산관재인의 부인권이 제척기간 경과로 소멸한 후에
- 채권자취소권의 행사기간의 법적 성격(=제척기간)
- 제척기간의 중단이나 정지가 인정되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• where a decision to close the bankruptcy proceedings with respect to the debtor becomes final and conclusive
• after the bankruptcy trustee's right of avoidance has been extinguished by lapse of the exclusion period
• legal nature of the period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation (= exclusion period)
• whether interruption or suspension of the exclusion period may be recognized (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2005다183 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da183 decided April 29, 2005
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2017다265129 판결(공2018하, 1272) / [2] 대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2005다183 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where, rather than a revocation of bankruptcy, a decision closing the bankruptcy is rendered after distribution, does the bankruptcy creditor's creditor revocation action become legally valid in the same manner?
We will re-examine this reading if the provision on the period for exercise in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, or the provisions of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act concerning the right of avoidance and the revocation of bankruptcy, are amended.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI of a different lineage (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, six of the eight axes matched, and the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test) and the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the original text sets out the legal principle on the revocation of bankruptcy and the exclusion period and orders a reversal and remand, the first reading may place weight on the application to the facts, while the independent reading may place weight on the elements for determining legality and the period.
제척기간의 중단이나 정지가 인정되는지 여부(소극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Even where, rather than a revocation of bankruptcy, a decision closing the bankruptcy is rendered after distribution, does the bankruptcy creditor's creditor revocation action become legally valid in the same manner?” vs Independent “When did the plaintiff actually learn of the ground for revocation, and was this action filed within one year of that date?”
The first asks whether the same legal principle applies where the bankruptcy is closed as well, while the independent reading asks when the ground for revocation was actually learned and whether the period for filing was observed.
이는 채무자에 대한 파산선고로 채권자취소의 소를 제기할 수 없는 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)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 court below held that even a creditor revocation action filed during bankruptcy proceedings becomes legally valid if the bankruptcy is revoked, irrespective of whether the right of avoidance is exercised or extinguished. It also rejected the argument that the exclusion period had elapsed, on the ground that the creditor's right of revocation is absorbed into and extinguished by the right of avoidance upon the declaration of bankruptcy, and therefore the exclusion period does not run while the bankruptcy proceedings continue.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the court below's determination on the legality of the action as correct. However, because the exclusion period is not interrupted or suspended even where an action cannot be filed by reason of the declaration of bankruptcy, it held that the court below's rejection of the defendant's argument without examining the date on which the plaintiff learned of the ground for revocation amounted to a misapprehension of legal principles, and reversed and remanded the case.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where a bankruptcy creditor filed a creditor revocation action while the bankruptcy proceedings were continuing, without a decision revoking bankruptcy having become final
- Where the bankruptcy trustee has exercised the right of avoidance and the relevant property has already been recovered into the bankruptcy estate
- Where it is clear from the record that the action was filed within one year of the date on which the ground for revocation was learned and within five years of the date of the juristic act
Record verification notes
Before asserting that a creditor revocation action filed after the revocation of bankruptcy is legally valid, first confirm whether the one-year exclusion period, counting from the date on which the plaintiff learned of the ground for revocation to the date the action was filed and including the period of the bankruptcy proceedings, has already elapsed.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 파산선고 후에 제기된 채권자취소소송 계속 중에 채무자에 대한 파산폐지결정이 확정된 경우, 채권자취소의 소가 부적법한지 여부(소극) 및 이는 파산관재인의 부인권이 제척기간 경과로 소멸한 후에 파산채권자가 채권자취소의 소를 제기한 경우에도 동일한지 여부(적극) [2] 민법 제406조 제2항에서 정한 채권자취소권의 행사기간의 법적 성격(=제척기간) 및 제척기간의 중단이나 정지가 인정되는지 여부(소극) / 이는 채무자에 대한 파산선고로 채권자취소의 소를 제기할 수 없는 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a creditor revocation action becomes improper when a decision to close the bankruptcy proceedings with respect to the debtor becomes final and conclusive while the creditor revocation action filed after the declaration of bankruptcy is pending (negative), and whether the same applies even where a bankruptcy claimant files a creditor revocation action after the bankruptcy trustee's right of avoidance has been extinguished by lapse of the exclusion period (affirmative) [2] Legal nature of the period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Act (= exclusion period) and whether interruption or suspension of the exclusion period may be recognized (negative) / Whether the same is likewise the case where a creditor revocation action cannot be filed due to the declaration of bankruptcy with respect to the debtor (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제406조, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제391조, 제396조, 제405조, 제424조 [2] 민법 제406조, 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제391조, 제396조, 제424조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. 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