Open Decision Ledger · Rehabilitation & bankruptcy
When performance of an approved individual rehabilitation plan is plainly impossible
Supreme Court, Nov. 25, 2025, 2025Ma6985 (ruling)
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: 개인회생
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What circumstances must a court weigh under Article 621(1)(ii) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act before it is plainly impossible for the debtor to perform the approved rehabilitation plan, and on an immediate appeal against a decision dismissing the procedure, at what time and by what means may the appellate court decide the appeal?
Holding
Whether it is plainly impossible must be decided by weighing together the content of the approved plan, the extent to which it has been performed so far, the reason performance failed, the debtor's good faith, the debtor's finances, income and expenditure, any change since the commencement of the procedure, and the creditors' will. Mere uncertainty or some flexibility in the prospect of performance is not enough. On an immediate appeal against a dismissal decision, the appellate court decides by reference to the time of its own decision, taking account of all that has happened by then, and may where necessary hold oral argument or hear the parties, interested persons and witnesses.
Points at issue, verbatim
‘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
Unofficial English translation
The criteria for determining whether a case falls under "where it is obvious that the debtor cannot perform the approved repayment plan," and whether a case may be regarded as one where "it is obvious that the debtor cannot perform" the plan merely on the ground that the prospect of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
등과 비교하여 그 사이에 사정변경이 있었는지 여부 및 채권자들의 의사 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려할 것이나
Unofficial English translation
should comprehensively consider, in comparison with the foregoing, whether there has been a change of circumstances in the meantime and various circumstances such as the intentions of the creditors, but
Factors
- ‘채무자가 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백할 때’
- 단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로
- 항고의 당부를 판단하는 기준 시점(=항고심 결정 시)
- 변론을 열거나 당사자와 이해관계인, 참고인을 심문한 다음
- 재항고 이후 51회분까지의 변제액을 모두 납부하여 현재 미납금이 없는 점
Unofficial English translation
• "where it is obvious that the debtor cannot perform the approved repayment plan"
• merely on the ground that the prospect of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid
• the point in time serving as the basis for determining the merits of the appeal against a ruling (= the time of the decision of the court hearing the appeal against a ruling)
• after holding oral argument or examining the parties, interested persons, and reference witnesses
• after the reappeal, paid all of the repayment amounts through the 51st installment so that there is currently no unpaid amount
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 7. 25. 자 2017마280 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Ma280 decided July 25, 2017
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 many missed instalments, or how large an unpaid balance relative to the plan, must there be before performance of the approved plan is plainly impossible even though some payments continue to be made?
The remanded decision of the Daejeon District Court in 2025Ra1009, once it holds the hearing the Supreme Court required, will show what the sufficiency of that hearing looks like in practice. Any amendment to Article 621(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, or a later decision revising Supreme Court Decision 2017Ma280 or Supreme Court Decision 2021Ma279, 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 5 (factors), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “‘채무자가 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백할 때’ / 단순히 변제계획에 따른 이행 가능성이 확고하지 못하다거나 다소 유동적이라는 정도의 사정만으로 / 항고의 당부를 판단하는 기준 시점(=항고심 결정 시) / 변론을 열거나 당사자와 이해관계인, 참고인을 심문한 다음 / 재항고 이후 51회분까지의 변제액을 모두 납부하여 현재 미납금이 없는 점” vs Independent “총 60회분 중 31회분까지 변제액을 성실히 납입하다가 / 32회분부터 39회분까지 변제액을 납입하지 못하자 / 갑이 원심결정 시까지 성실하게 일부 변제액을 납입하였을 뿐만 아니라 / 재항고 이후 51회분까지의 변제액을 모두 납부하여 현재 미납금이 없는 점”
The primary reading mainly lists the legal threshold and procedural considerations, while the independent reading mainly lists payment history, with direct overlap limited to the eventual clearance of arrears.
총 60회분 중 31회분까지 변제액을 성실히 납입하다가Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How many missed instalments, or how large an unpaid balance relative to the plan, must there be before performance of the approved plan is plainly impossible even though some payments continue to be made?” vs Independent “Will further examination of the debtor's finances and expected income establish a clear inability to complete the remaining payments?”
The primary reading asks about a quantitative arrears threshold despite continuing payments, while the independent reading asks what further examination will establish about this debtor's remaining repayment capacity.
‘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 여부Raw 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 Daejeon District Court, in Decision 2025Ra1009 of 1 July 2025, kept the first-instance decision dismissing the individual rehabilitation procedure and dismissed the debtor's immediate appeal. After the debtor received on 4 April 2025 a correction recommendation requiring payment of all arrears and submission of a certificate of performance, the unpaid amount had risen rather than fallen, to KRW 4,068,698, or 10.09 instalments, and the court held on that basis that the debtor plainly could not perform the approved plan.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the debtor had paid the first 31 instalments faithfully, had made partial payments after the dismissal decision and up to the appellate decision, and had paid every instalment through the 51st after filing the re-appeal, leaving no arrears as at 10 November 2025, with no material showing that the debtor's finances had changed since commencement in a way that affects performance. The appellate court should have examined through a correction order or by hearing the debtor, interested persons and witnesses the change in finances since approval, the reason for non-performance, current income and expenditure and expected future earnings, and weighed them together. Misreading the law on the grounds for dismissal and failing to hold that hearing was an error affecting the decision, so the appellate decision was reversed and the case remanded, on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the unpaid amount has shrunk or disappeared by the time of the appellate decision, so that it is not plainly impossible to perform.
- A case in which the debtor's financial position since approval has changed so as to affect performance, since the Court relied on the absence of any such change.
- A case in which no payments were made after the dismissal decision and arrears remain at the time of the appellate decision, since the Court relied on payments totalling through the 51st instalment and on the absence of arrears as at 10 November 2025.
Record verification notes
Set out the whole payment history of the approved plan, instalment by instalment, with the unpaid amount at the first-instance decision and again at the appellate decision, since the Court weighed payments made both after the dismissal and after the re-appeal. Then check whether the appellate court ordered correction or heard the debtor, interested persons or witnesses on the change in finances, the reason for non-performance, income and expenditure and expected earnings, and confirm which version of Article 621 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act was in force.
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 총 60회분 중 31회분까지 변제액을 성실히 납입하다가 32회분부터 39회분까지 변제액을 납입하지 못하자 제1심법원이 개인회생절차폐지결정을 하였고, 이에 갑이 즉시항고를 제기한 후 변제액을 일부 납입하였으나 원심법원이 갑의 위 일부 납입에도 불구하고 미납금 규모가 제1심결정 시점보다 증가하였으므로 갑이 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없다고 보인다는 이유로 항고를 기각한 사안에서, 갑이 원심결정 시까지 성실하게 일부 변제액을 납입하였을 뿐만 아니라, 재항고 이후 51회분까지의 변제액을 모두 납부하여 현재 미납금이 없는 점 등을 고려하면 갑이 인가된 변제계획을 이행할 수 없음이 명백한 경우에 해당한다고 보기 어려운데도, 이와 달리 본 원심결정에 심리미진 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The criteria for determining whether a case falls under "where it is obvious that the debtor cannot perform the approved repayment plan," which is prescribed as a ground for dismissal of individual rehabilitation proceedings in Article 621, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and whether a case may be regarded as one where "it is obvious that the debtor cannot perform" the plan merely on the ground that the prospect of performance under the repayment plan is not firm or is somewhat fluid (negative) [2] In cases where an immediate appeal against a ruling is filed against an order dismissing individual rehabilitation proceedings, the point in time serving as the basis for determining the merits of the appeal against a ruling (= the time of the decision of the court hearing the appeal against a ruling), and whether, in such case, the court may determine the merits of the appeal against a ruling after holding oral argument or examining the parties, interested persons, and reference witnesses (affirmative) [3] A obtained an order commencing individual rehabilitation proceedings and then faithfully paid the repayment amounts up to the 31st installment out of a total of 60 installments under the approved repayment plan; when A failed to pay the repayment amounts from the 32nd installment through the 39th installment, the court of first instance rendered an order dismissing the individual rehabilitation proceedings; A filed an immediate appeal against a ruling and thereafter made partial payment of the repayment amounts, but the court below dismissed the appeal against a ruling on the ground that, notwithstanding A's partial payment, the amount of the unpaid sums had increased compared to the time of the order of the court of first instance and thus A appears unable to perform the approved repayment plan. In such case, considering that A had not only faithfully paid part of the repayment amounts up to the time of the order of the court below but, after the reappeal, paid all of the repayment amounts through the 51st installment so that there is currently no unpaid amount, it is difficult to regard the case as one where it is obvious that A cannot perform the approved repayment plan; a case holding that, contrary thereto, the order of the court below was flawed in, among other things, failure to exhaust deliberations
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
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon 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, 제623조 제1항
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