Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Extinction of a claim only when the re-made distribution table becomes final
Supreme Court, June 11, 2026, 2025Da221009 (judgment)
Case name: 배당이의
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a court hearing an objection to distribution deleted the amount allocated to a creditor without fixing the sum the objecting creditor was to receive and ordered a new table and a fresh distribution procedure under the latter part of Article 157 of the Civil Execution Act, and where the judgments in several such suits together exceed the amount originally allocated, does the creditor's claim extinguish before the re-made table becomes final?
Holding
It does not. Where the objection court deleted the allocation but left the creditor's own amount open and ordered a new table, the creditor's claim is extinguished only when the re-made table in the re-distribution procedure becomes final. Where several such judgments fix increases whose total exceeds the amount originally allocated to one creditor, the orders conflict, the enforcement court must remake the table and conduct a re-distribution procedure, and only the finalisation of the new table extinguishes the creditors' claims to the extent of their allocations.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 배당이의의 수소법원이 피고에 대한 배당액을 삭제하면서 채권자인 원고가 배당받을 금액을 정하지 않고 배당표를 다시 만들고 다른 배당절차를 밟도록 명한 경우에는(민사집행법 제157조 후문), 그 판결에 따라 배당법원이 실시한 재배당절차에서 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 원고의 채권이 소멸한다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the court adjudicating an action for objection to distribution, while deleting the distribution amount to the defendant, did not determine the amount to be distributed to the creditor plaintiff and ordered that a new distribution table be prepared and another distribution procedure be followed (the latter part of Article 157 of the Civil Execution Act), the plaintiff's claim is extinguished when the distribution table re-prepared in the redistribution procedure conducted by the distribution court pursuant to that judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 1 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against Defendant 1, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
집행법원은 배당표를 다시 만들어 재배당절차를 실시하여야 하고, 이 경우 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 비로소 그 배당액에 상응하는 범위에서 채권자인 원고들의 채권이 소멸한다.
Unofficial English translation
the execution court must prepare a new distribution table and conduct a redistribution procedure, and in such case, only when the distribution table re-prepared thereby becomes final and conclusive are the claims of the creditor plaintiffs extinguished to the extent corresponding to that distribution amount.
Factors
- 채권자가 배당이의의 소를 제기하여 승소판결이 확정되면 그가 이의한 부분에 대한 배당표가 확정되고
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그의 채권은 배당액으로 충당되는 범위에서 배당표의 확정 시에 소멸한다
- 채권자인 원고가 배당받을 금액을 정하지 않고 배당표를 다시 만들고 다른 배당절차를 밟도록 명한 경우에는
- 저촉부분에 관계된 채권자인 원고들 사이에서는 그 부분의 귀속에 관한 판단이 없는 셈이므로(배당이의의 소의 상대효)
Unofficial English translation
• Where a creditor files an action for objection to distribution and a judgment in the creditor's favor becomes final and conclusive, the distribution table as to the portion to which the objection was raised becomes final and conclusive, and
• unless there are special circumstances, the creditor's claim is extinguished at the time the distribution table becomes final and conclusive to the extent it is satisfied by the distribution amount
• where the amount to be distributed to the creditor plaintiff was not determined but it was ordered that a new distribution table be prepared and another distribution procedure be followed,
• among the creditor plaintiffs concerned with the conflicting portion, there is no determination as to the attribution of that portion (relative effect of an action for objection to distribution)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 3. 27. 선고 2015다70822 판결(공2018상, 784)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Da70822 decided March 27, 2018 (Gong 2018 Sang, 784)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 3. 27. 선고 2015다70822 판결(공2018상, 784), 대법원 2022. 11. 30. 선고 2021다287171 판결(공2023상, 138)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the conflicting increases cannot all be met out of the amount freed on the re-made table, how are the objecting creditors' shares to be computed in that re-distribution procedure?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, if it orders a re-distribution procedure and lays down how the freed amount is to be shared among the objecting creditors, will show how this conflict is resolved in practice. A later decision setting out the method of computing shares in a re-made table 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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 3 December 2025 (2024Na2034109), held that the judgment in Defendant 1's objection suit had become final on 15 May 2025, fixing KRW 370,333,967 for Defendant 1, so that an equivalent part of Defendant 1's claim was extinguished by payment. It also rejected the plaintiffs' grounds that the two promissory note notarial deeds were void for want of representation, and their ground that the distribution table wrongly recorded Plaintiff 2's claim amount and so had to be corrected.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the rejection of the plaintiffs' first, second and third grounds, and dismissed their appeals. On Defendant 1's appeal it held that the increase awarded to the plaintiffs and the increase awarded to Defendant 1 both drew on the same reduction of the first-instance co-defendant's allocation from KRW 154,475,193 to KRW 35,648,121, so the total exceeded the original allocation and the orders could not be carried out by correcting the table alone. It reversed the part of the judgment adverse to Defendant 1 for misreading the law on when the table is fixed and the claim extinguished, and remanded it, without examining Defendant 1's remaining grounds.
Distinguishing conditions
- An objection judgment that itself fixes the sum the objecting creditor is to receive, so that no order is left for a new table under the latter part of Article 157 of the Civil Execution Act.
- A set of objection judgments whose fixed increases, taken together, do not exceed the amount originally allocated on the table, so that no conflicting portion arises.
- A re-distribution procedure in which the re-made table has already become final, since the claim then extinguishes to the extent of the new allocation.
Record verification notes
Set out the original distribution table line by line, then every judgment in every objection suit against it, and add up the increases each judgment orders for the same creditor. Check whether the objection court left the creditor's own amount open and invoked Article 157, and whether the enforcement court has since remade the table and whether that new table has become final, since the answer turns on the last of these points.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채권자가 배당이의의 소를 제기하여 승소판결이 확정되었으나 배당이의의 수소법원이 피고에 대한 배당액을 삭제하면서 채권자인 원고가 배당받을 금액을 정하지 않고 배당표를 다시 만들고 다른 배당절차를 밟도록 명한 경우, 배당법원이 실시한 재배당절차에서 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 원고의 채권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극) [2] 여러 채권자가 동일한 채권자를 피고로 하여 제기한 여러 개의 배당이의의 소의 판결이 선고된 결과 각 사건 원고들의 배당액에 증액할 금액의 합계액이 본래의 배당표상 피고에 대한 배당액을 초과하게 되어 서로 저촉되는 부분이 생긴 경우, 집행법원이 배당표를 다시 만들어 재배당절차를 실시하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이 경우 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 그 배당액에 상응하는 범위에서 채권자인 원고들의 채권이 소멸하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a creditor filed an action for objection to distribution and a judgment in the creditor's favor became final and conclusive, but the court adjudicating the action for objection to distribution, while deleting the distribution amount to the defendant, did not determine the amount to be distributed to the creditor plaintiff and ordered that a new distribution table be prepared and another distribution procedure be followed, the plaintiff's claim is extinguished only when the distribution table re-prepared in the redistribution procedure conducted by the distribution court pursuant to that judgment becomes final and conclusive (affirmative) [2] Whether, where judgments have been rendered in several actions for objection to distribution filed by several creditors against the same creditor as defendant, as a result of which the total of the amounts by which the distribution amounts of the plaintiffs in each case are to be increased exceeds the amount originally distributed to the defendant under the distribution table, thereby creating mutually conflicting portions, the execution court must prepare a new distribution table and conduct a redistribution procedure (affirmative), and whether, in such case, the claims of the creditor plaintiffs are extinguished, to the extent corresponding to that distribution amount, only when the distribution table re-prepared thereby becomes final and conclusive (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채권자가 배당이의의 소를 제기하여 승소판결이 확정되면 그가 이의한 부분에 대한 배당표가 확정되고, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그의 채권은 배당액으로 충당되는 범위에서 배당표의 확정 시에 소멸한다. 그러나 배당이의의 수소법원이 피고에 대한 배당액을 삭제하면서 채권자인 원고가 배당받을 금액을 정하지 않고 배당표를 다시 만들고 다른 배당절차를 밟도록 명한 경우에는(민사집행법 제157조 후문), 그 판결에 따라 배당법원이 실시한 재배당절차에서 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 원고의 채권이 소멸한다. [2] 여러 채권자가 동일한 채권자를 피고로 하여 제기한 여러 개의 배당이의의 소의 판결 주문에서 다툼이 있는 부분에 관하여 배당을 받을 채권자와 그 액수를 정하였지만 각 판결 주문에 따라 각 사건 원고들의 배당액에 증액할 금액의 합계액이 본래의 배당표상 피고에 대한 배당액을 초과하게 되어 서로 저촉되는 부분에 관하여 주문대로 배당표를 경정하여 지급하는 것이 불가능한 경우가 있을 수 있다. 이처럼 여러 개의 배당이의의 소의 판결이 선고된 결과 저촉부분이 생긴 경우에 그 저촉부분에 관계된 채권자인 원고들 사이에서는 그 부분의 귀속에 관한 판단이 없는 셈이므로(배당이의의 소의 상대효), 집행법원은 배당표를 다시 만들어 재배당절차를 실시하여야 하고, 이 경우 재조제한 배당표가 확정되어야 비로소 그 배당액에 상응하는 범위에서 채권자인 원고들의 채권이 소멸한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 1 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고들의 피고 주식회사 △△△, 피고 3에 대한 상고로 인한 부분은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against Defendant 1, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion arising from the plaintiffs' final appeal against Defendant Corporation △△△ and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제154조 제1항, 제157조 / [2] 민사집행법 제154조 제1항, 제157조
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