Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
A declared bankrupt defendant and the bankruptcy estate as the proper forum
Supreme Court, May 8, 2026, 2025Da220617 (judgment)
Case name: 건물인도·보증금반환[이미 파산선고를 받은 채무자를 상대로 제기한 소의 적법 여부가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the plaintiff sued a defendant already declared bankrupt, seeking delivery of the property he possessed and restitution of unjust enrichment, was the claim a lawsuit concerning the bankruptcy estate that must be dismissed for want of party status, and is a successor-in-procedure application premised on the suit having been pending at the time of the adjudication allowed?
Holding
Yes, and no. All property the debtor holds at the time of the adjudication forms the bankruptcy estate, and the trustee alone may manage and dispose of it, realising its property and satisfying estate claims from it. A debtor has no party status in a lawsuit concerning the estate, so a suit against a declared bankrupt debtor is procedurally inadmissible and must be dismissed, with no successor-in-procedure application available on the basis that the suit was already pending. Here the delivery and unjust enrichment claims arising from possession begun before the adjudication fall to proceed against the trustee unless there are special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
파산재단에 관한 소송에서 채무자는 당사자적격이 없으므로(제359조), 이미 파산선고를 받은 채무자를 피고로 하여 제기한 소는 부적법한 것으로서 각하되어야 하고, 이 경우 파산선고 당시 법원에 소송이 계속되어 있음을 전제로 한 소송수계신청은 허용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
In a lawsuit concerning the bankruptcy estate, the debtor lacks party standing (Article 359); therefore, an action filed against a debtor who has already received a declaration of bankruptcy is improper and must be dismissed on procedural grounds, and in such case, an application for succession to the litigation, premised on the lawsuit having been pending in court at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, is not permissible.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 2에 대한 본소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분에 관한 제1심판결을 취소하며, 이 부분 본소를 각하한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the main claim against Defendant 2, the judgment of the court of first instance in this part is set aside, and the main claim in this part is dismissed on procedural grounds.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
파산선고에 의하여 채무자가 파산선고 당시에 가진 국내외의 모든 재산은 파산재단을 구성하고(제382조 제1항), 그 파산재단을 관리 및 처분할 권리는 파산관재인에게 전속한다(제384조).
Unofficial English translation
By a declaration of bankruptcy, all property, domestic and foreign, held by the debtor at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy constitutes the bankruptcy estate (Article 382 (1)), and the right to manage and dispose of the bankruptcy estate belongs exclusively to the bankruptcy trustee (Article 384).
Factors
- 관련 분쟁의 경위와 성격 및 파산절차 경과 등에 비추어
- 파산절차상 환취권의 행사(인도청구권)
- 발생시기별로 파산채권 또는 재단채권의 행사(부당이득반환청구권)
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한
Unofficial English translation
• In light of the course and nature of the relevant dispute, the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings, and other circumstances,
• Exercise of the right of recovery in bankruptcy in bankruptcy proceedings (claim for delivery)
• Exercise of a bankruptcy claim or an estate claim according to the time of arising (claim for return of unjust enrichment)
• Unless there are special circumstances,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 11. 29. 선고 2015다216444 판결(공2018상, 19)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Da216444 decided November 29, 2017 (Gong 2018 Sang, 19)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 11. 29. 선고 2015다216444 판결(공2018상, 19), 대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2017다289828 판결(공2018하, 1277)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would let such a claim proceed against the declared bankrupt debtor rather than be dismissed?
A later decision defining those reserved circumstances, or an amendment to Articles 359, 382(1), 384 or 492(xii) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 19 November 2025 (2025Na12417, 12418), did not know Defendant 2 had been declared bankrupt. It closed argument on 1 October 2025, dismissed all appeals and granted in part the alternative counterclaim, ordering Defendant 1 to deliver the property and return unjust enrichment of possession from 2 September 2024 and the management fees paid, and the plaintiff to return KRW 186,000,000 Defendant 1 paid toward the purchase price.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court examined the claim against Defendant 2 on its own motion, held that it should have proceeded against the trustee, reversed that part and dismissed it, finding the record sufficient to decide itself. On the remaining grounds it found no error of law on unjust enrichment, burden of proof, bad faith, gratuitous loan or management fees, and dismissed both appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the trustee abandons the right with the court's permission, which the Court expressly left to one side.
- A claim against a co-defendant not declared bankrupt, since the dismissal reached Defendant 2 alone.
- A claim that does not seek realisation of or payment from the estate, so the debtor's own party status remains.
Record verification notes
Check first whether the bankruptcy adjudication preceded the filing, as both courts below proceeded without knowing of it. Then trace each claim to possession already begun at the adjudication and to the recovery right or a bankruptcy or estate claim. Finally check whether the trustee was substituted or obtained permission to abandon, and which defendants remain.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 이미 파산선고를 받은 채무자를 피고로 하여 제기한 소가 적법한지 여부(소극) 및 이 경우 파산선고 당시 법원에 소송이 계속되어 있음을 전제로 한 소송수계신청이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 갑이 아버지인 을을 대리인으로 하여 부동산을 매수하였고, 이후 을 등이 위 부동산을 점유·사용하던 중 을이 파산선고를 받았는데, 파산절차 진행 중에 갑이 을 등을 상대로 부동산 인도 및 부당이득금 반환을 구한 사안에서, 갑의 을에 대한 청구는 을에 대한 파산절차상 파산재단에 관한 소송으로 진행함이 타당하므로, 당사자적격이 없는 을을 상대로 제기된 소는 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an action filed against a debtor who has already received a declaration of bankruptcy is proper (negative) and, in such case, whether an application for succession to the litigation, premised on the lawsuit having been pending in court at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, is permissible (negative) [2] In a case where A purchased real estate with A's father, B, as agent; thereafter B and others occupied and used the said real estate, during which B received a declaration of bankruptcy; and A, during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, sought delivery of the real estate and return of unjust enrichment from B and others, holding that A's claim against B should properly proceed as a lawsuit concerning the bankruptcy estate in the bankruptcy proceedings against B, and that the lawsuit filed against B, who lacks party standing, is improper and must be dismissed on procedural grounds
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에 의하면 파산선고에 의하여 채무자가 파산선고 당시에 가진 국내외의 모든 재산은 파산재단을 구성하고(제382조 제1항), 그 파산재단을 관리 및 처분할 권리는 파산관재인에게 전속한다(제384조). 파산관재인은 파산재단에 속하는 재산을 환가하여 파산채권자들에 대한 배당을 실시할 뿐만 아니라 재단채권 역시 파산재단에 속하는 재산에서 수시로 변제할 의무를 부담한다. 파산재단에 관한 소송에서 채무자는 당사자적격이 없으므로(제359조), 이미 파산선고를 받은 채무자를 피고로 하여 제기한 소는 부적법한 것으로서 각하되어야 하고, 이 경우 파산선고 당시 법원에 소송이 계속되어 있음을 전제로 한 소송수계신청은 허용되지 않는다. [2] 갑이 아버지인 을을 대리인으로 하여 부동산을 매수하였고, 이후 을 등이 위 부동산을 점유·사용하던 중 을이 파산선고를 받았는데, 파산절차 진행 중에 갑이 을 등을 상대로 부동산 인도 및 부당이득금 반환을 구한 사안에서, 을에 대한 파산선고 전에 개시된 을의 부동산 점유로 인한 갑의 을에 대한 부동산 인도청구와 부당이득반환청구는 관련 분쟁의 경위와 성격 및 파산절차 경과 등에 비추어 파산절차상 환취권의 행사(인도청구권) 및 발생시기별로 파산채권 또는 재단채권의 행사(부당이득반환청구권)에 해당한다고 볼 수 있어, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 을에 대한 파산절차상 파산재단에 관한 소송으로 진행함이 타당하므로, 을에 대하여 파산이 선고된 사실을 간과하고 파산재단에 관한 권리의 행사를 위하여 당사자적격이 없는 을을 상대로 제기된 소는 부적법하여 각하되어야 한다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 2에 대한 본소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분에 관한 제1심판결을 취소하며, 이 부분 본소를 각하한다. 원고(반소피고)의 상고 및 피고(반소원고) 1의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 원고(반소피고)와 피고 2 사이에 생긴 소송총비용은 원고(반소피고)가 부담하고, 원고(반소피고)와 피고(반소원고) 1 사이에 생긴 상고비용 중 원고(반소피고)의 상고로 인한 부분은 원고(반소피고)가, 피고(반소원고) 1의 상고로 인한 부분은 피고(반소원고) 1이 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the main claim against Defendant 2, the judgment of the court of first instance in this part is set aside, and the main claim in this part is dismissed on procedural grounds. All appeals to the Supreme Court taken by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) and by Defendant 1 (plaintiff in the counterclaim) are dismissed. Of the total costs of the lawsuit incurred between the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) and Defendant 2, those shall be borne by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim), and of the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court incurred between the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) and Defendant 1 (plaintiff in the counterclaim), those arising from the appeal taken by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) shall be borne by the plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim), and those arising from the appeal taken by Defendant 1 (plaintiff in the counterclaim) shall be borne by Defendant 1 (plaintiff in the counterclaim), respectively.
Provisions referred to
[1] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제347조 제1항, 제359조, 제382조 제1항, 제384조, 제475조 / [2] 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제359조, 제382조 제1항, 제384조, 제407조, 제424조, 제475조
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