Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
When an approved repayment plan plainly cannot be performed
Supreme Court, Aug. 20, 2024, 2024Ma6102 (ruling)
Case name: 개인회생
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 621(1)(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, what circumstances decide that a debtor plainly cannot perform an approved repayment plan, and when an immediate objection is filed against a dismissal, must the objection court decide on the state of affairs at the time of its own decision?
Holding
The court must weigh together the content of the approved plan, the extent to which it had been performed, the reason for non-performance, the debtor's diligence, the debtor's financial condition and the state of income and expenditure, whether circumstances changed compared with the debtor's position when the case opened, and the creditors' will. Want of certainty, or a merely fluid outlook, does not by itself make the debtor plainly unable to perform. The court hearing an immediate objection decides on the circumstances known when it decides the objection, and, where necessary, may open a hearing or examine the parties, interested persons and witnesses. On these facts the Court held it was hard to find plain impossibility, given the debtor's diligent payment of 11 instalments, the additional economic burden of his daughter's osteosarcoma chemotherapy and the payment of KRW 7,000,000 followed by the whole of the remaining arrears.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로는 ‘이행할 수 없음이 명백한 때’에 해당한다고 할 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The mere circumstance that the possibility of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid does not constitute "a case where it is clear that [the debtor] cannot perform [the plan]."
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
당초 개인회생절차개시 시점에서의 채무자의 재정상태 등과 비교하여 그사이에 사정변경이 있었는지 여부 및 채권자들의 의사 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려할 것이나
Unofficial English translation
various circumstances, such as whether there had been any change of circumstances in the meantime as compared with the debtor's financial status as of the original time of the commencement of individual rehabilitation proceedings, etc., and the intentions of the creditors, must be comprehensively considered, but
Factors
- 인가된 변제계획의 내용, 당시까지 변제계획이 이행된 정도
- 채무자가 변제계획을 이행하지 못하게 된 이유, 변제계획의 이행에 대한 채무자의 성실성의 정도
- 채무자의 재정상태나 수입 및 지출의 현황, 당초 개인회생절차개시 시점에서의 채무자의 재정상태 등과 비교하여 그사이에 사정변경이 있었는지 여부
- 채권자들의 의사
- 단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로는
Unofficial English translation
• the contents of the approved repayment plan, and the extent to which the repayment plan had been performed as of that time
• the reasons why the debtor became unable to perform the repayment plan, and the degree of the debtor's good faith in performing the repayment plan
• the debtor's financial status and the status of income and expenditure, and whether there had been any change of circumstances in the meantime as compared with the debtor's financial status as of the original time of the commencement of individual rehabilitation proceedings, etc.
• the intentions of the creditors
• merely from the circumstance that the possibility of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 7. 25. 자 2017마280 결정, 대법원 2022. 1. 7. 자 2021마279 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Ma280 decided July 25, 2017, Supreme Court Decision 2021Ma279 decided January 7, 2022
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2017. 7. 25. 자 2017마280 결정, 대법원 2022. 1. 7. 자 2021마279 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far behind, and for how long, must the instalments fall before performance becomes plainly impossible rather than merely uncertain?
The retrial at the Cheongju District Court after the remand, in case 2023Ra50406, will show how the Court's factors are weighed where the debtor has since paid the arrears in full. An amendment to Article 621(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on dismissal for plain impossibility, 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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far behind, and for how long, must the instalments fall before performance becomes plainly impossible rather than merely uncertain?” vs Independent “After full examination of the debtor's changed finances and expected income, is inability to perform the remaining repayment plan still clear?”
The primary reading asks the threshold of arrears and duration that makes inability plain, while the independent reading asks whether inability remains clear after remand fact-finding.
단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로는 ‘이행할 수 없음이 명백한 때’에 해당한다고 할 것은 아니다.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 Cheongju District Court, in its decision of 26 January 2024 (2023Ra50406) on the debtor's immediate objection, found that the debtor had failed to pay at least seven monthly instalments by 2 August 2023 and had filed no material showing he could pay the arrears, that after filing the objection on 17 August 2023 he undertook to pay everything by 31 August 2023 but did not, and that although the court ordered full payment of the arrears on 1 September 2023 he deposited only KRW 400,000 and paid nothing further, leaving 20.98 instalments unpaid as at 26 January 2024. On that basis it held the plan was unlikely to be performed, kept the first-instance dismissal and dismissed the objection.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the debtor had paid 11 instalments diligently before the dismissal decision, and that his failure to pay and to file supporting material appears to have been influenced by his daughter's diagnosis of osteosarcoma on 21 August 2023 and the start of chemotherapy, together with the circumstances in which he paid KRW 7,000,000 on the re-appeal and the rest shortly after. The court below should have examined, by a correction order and by examining the debtor, interested persons and witnesses, the change in his finances since the plan was approved, the reasons for non-performance, his current income and expenditure and his expected future income, and should have weighed them together. It did not, and so misstated the law on the ground for dismissal and failed to complete the necessary hearing, an error affecting the decision, which was therefore reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the debtor's finances since the plan was approved show so plainly, beyond want of certainty, that the expected income cannot cover the instalments.
- A case in which the court below has already examined by a correction order and by questioning the debtor, interested persons and witnesses the change in finances, the reasons for non-performance and the current and expected income, and has weighed them together.
- A case in which no special circumstance such as a family illness accounts for the missed payments and the missing material.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the plan on its own terms: approved on 29 November 2021, KRW 400,000 a month for 36 instalments totalling KRW 14,400,000, being 24 per cent of the principal, with 11 instalments paid and arrears running from the twelfth (28 February 2022) to the twenty-fourth (28 February 2023). Then ask what the debtor offers as the reason for the arrears and whether he has paid since the dismissal decision, as he paid KRW 7,000,000 in about March 2024 and the rest shortly after. Finally check whether the court below heard the debtor or interested persons, or issued a correction order, since the reversal rests on the absence of that hearing.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제621조 제1항 제2호에서 개인회생절차 폐지사유로 정한 ‘채무자가 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백할 때’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 및 단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로 ‘이행할 수 없음이 명백한 때’에 해당한다고 할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 개인회생절차폐지결정에 대하여 즉시항고가 제기된 경우, 항고의 당부를 판단하는 기준 시점(=항고심 결정 시) 및 이 경우 변론을 열거나 당사자와 이해관계인, 참고인을 심문한 다음 항고의 당부를 판단할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [3] 갑이 개인회생절차개시결정을 받은 다음 인가된 변제계획에 따라 11회분까지 변제액을 성실히 납입하였으나, 그 후 월변제예정액을 7회 이상 납입하지 못하고, 미납된 월변제예정액을 납입할 수 있음을 소명할 자료도 제출하지 아니하였다는 이유로 제1심법원으로부터 개인회생절차폐지결정을 받았고, 이에 갑이 즉시항고를 제기하였으나 1회분의 변제액을 입금한 이후 미납된 월변제액을 납부하지 아니하자 원심법원이 변제계획안을 수행할 가능성이 없다고 봄이 상당하다며 항고를 기각한 사안에서, 갑이 재항고를 하면서 당시까지의 미납금 중 일부를 변제하고 그 직후 잔존 미납금을 모두 납입하게 된 경위 등 제반 사정에 비추어 갑이 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한 경우에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the criterion for determining whether a case falls under 'where it is clear that the debtor cannot perform the approved repayment plan,' which is prescribed in subparagraph 2 of Article 621 (1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act as a ground for discontinuing individual rehabilitation proceedings, and whether a case may be regarded as falling under 'where it is clear that [the debtor] cannot perform [the plan]' merely on the basis of circumstances to the effect that the possibility of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid (negative) [2] Where an immediate appeal against a ruling is filed against an order discontinuing individual rehabilitation proceedings, the point in time serving as the criterion for determining the merits of the appeal against a ruling (= the time of the decision on the appeal against a ruling), and whether, in such a case, the merits of the appeal against a ruling may be determined after opening oral argument or examining the parties, interested parties, and reference persons (affirmative) [3] A case where A, having obtained an order commencing individual rehabilitation proceedings, faithfully paid the repayment amounts through the 11th installment pursuant to the approved repayment plan, but thereafter failed to pay the scheduled monthly repayment amounts for 7 or more installments and, on the ground that A had submitted no materials substantiating that the unpaid scheduled monthly repayment amounts could be paid, received from the court of first instance an order discontinuing individual rehabilitation proceedings; whereupon A filed an immediate appeal against a ruling, but after depositing one installment of the repayment amount, did not pay the unpaid monthly repayment amounts, and the court below dismissed the appeal against a ruling on the ground that it was reasonable to regard the possibility of performing the repayment plan as none; and where the Supreme Court, in light of all the circumstances, including the circumstances under which A, in filing the reappeal, paid part of the unpaid amounts as of that time and immediately thereafter paid all of the remaining unpaid amounts, held that it is difficult to regard the case as one falling under the situation where it is clear that A cannot perform the approved repayment plan
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제621조 제1항은 "법원은 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 때에는 이해관계인의 신청에 의하거나 직권으로 개인회생절차폐지의 결정을 하여야 한다."라고 규정하면서 제2호로 ‘채무자가 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백할 때’를 들고 있다. 이 경우 법원이 채무자가 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한지를 판단함에 있어서는, 인가된 변제계획의 내용, 당시까지 변제계획이 이행된 정도, 채무자가 변제계획을 이행하지 못하게 된 이유, 변제계획의 이행에 대한 채무자의 성실성의 정도, 채무자의 재정상태나 수입 및 지출의 현황, 당초 개인회생절차개시 시점에서의 채무자의 재정상태 등과 비교하여 그사이에 사정변경이 있었는지 여부 및 채권자들의 의사 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려할 것이나, 단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로는 ‘이행할 수 없음이 명백한 때’에 해당한다고 할 것은 아니다. [2] 개인회생절차폐지결정에 대하여 즉시항고가 제기된 경우, 항고심으로서는 그 속심적 성격에 비추어 항고심 결정 시를 기준으로 당시까지 발생한 사정까지 고려하여 판단하여야 하고, 필요할 경우에는 변론을 열거나 당사자와 이해관계인, 그 밖의 참고인을 심문한 다음 항고의 당부를 판단할 수도 있다. [3] 갑이 개인회생절차개시결정을 받은 다음 인가된 변제계획에 따라 11회분까지 변제액을 성실히 납입하였으나, 그 후 월변제예정액을 7회 이상 납입하지 못하고, 미납된 월변제예정액을 납입할 수 있음을 소명할 자료도 제출하지 아니하였다는 이유로 제1심법원으로부터 개인회생절차폐지결정을 받았고, 이에 갑이 즉시항고를 제기하였으나 1회분의 변제액을 입금한 이후 미납된 월변제액을 납부하지 아니하자 원심법원이 변제계획안을 수행할 가능성이 없다고 봄이 상당하다며 항고를 기각한 사안에서, 갑은 폐지결정 전까지 11회분의 변제액을 성실히 납입하였고, 폐지결정 후 원심결정 시까지는 추가로 1회분의 변제액을 납입하였을 뿐 달리 미납사유를 밝히거나 미납된 월변제예정액을 납입할 수 있음을 소명할 자료도 제출하지 아니하였으나, 이는 갑의 자녀가 골육종 진단을 받아 항암치료를 시작하면서 발생한 추가적인 경제적 부담 등 여러 상황이 변제액 미납이나 소명자료 미제출에 영향을 미친 것으로 보이고, 갑이 재항고를 하면서 당시까지의 미납금 중 일부를 변제하고 그 직후 잔존 미납금을 모두 납입하게 된 경위 등을 고려하면 갑이 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한 경우에 해당한다고 보기는 어려우므로, 원심으로서는 변제계획인가 이후의 갑의 재정상태 변경, 갑이 변제계획을 이행하지 못하게 된 이유, 현재의 수입과 지출 현황 및 향후의 예상소득 등 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한지를 판단하는 데 필요한 사정들을 보정명령이나 갑과 이해관계인 및 참고인 심문 등을 통하여 충분히 심리한 다음, 이를 종합적으로 고려하여 갑이 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한지를 판단하였어야 하는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심결정에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제621조 제1항 제2호 [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제621조 제1항, 제623조 제1항 [3] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제621조 제1항 제2호, 제623조 제1항
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