초록 close

개인파산절차에서 채무자가 특정 채권자를 채권자목록에서 누락한 결과 채권자가 파산선고의 존재를 알지 못하였던 경우, 채권자는 얼마나 법적 보 호를 받을 수 있을까? 채권자목록에서 누락된 채권자의 경우 사실상 ‘채무 자의 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률’(이하 ‘법’이라 한다)이 정하는 각종의 절차 적 보장을 받지 못할 뿐 아니라 최종적으로는 배당에서도 완전히 배제된 다. 예를 들어 채권자목록에서 누락된 채권자는 파산의 통지를 받지도 못 하고, 법원에 의견을 제시할 수도 없으며, 배당을 받지도 못하고, 채권조사 확정재판을 제기할 기회도 박탈당하게 된다. 그러나 이러한 경우가 실무상 문제되는 일은 드물었다. 아마도 가장 큰 이유는 채권자가 사후에 이를 알 았다고 하여도 새삼 이를 문제 삼는 것이 그에게 아무런 실익이 없는 경우 (동시폐지되어 다른 채권자들도 아무런 배당을 받지 못한 경우가 대표적일 것이다)가 대부분이었기 때문이다. 대상판결은 ‘구 파산법 제349조 제6호(법 제566조 제7호와 사실상 동일 하다)는 파산자가 면책결정 이전에 채권의 존재 사실을 알면서도 이를 채 권자명부에 기재하지 않은 경우를 뜻하므로, 채권자명부에 기재하지 않은 데에 과실이 있는지 여부를 불문하고 파산자가 채권의 존재 사실을 알지 못한 때에는 여기에 해당하지 아니 한다’고 판시하고 있다. 이러한 대상판 결에 따르면, ‘악의’에는 채무자가 과실로 채권의 존재를 알지 못한 경우는 제외된다. 결국 ‘악의’는 채권의 존재를 안다는 것 외에도 ‘고의’에 필적할 정도의 어떤 의도를 가지고 채권자명부에 기재를 누락한 경우를 의미하는 것이 된다. 그러나 위와 같은 대상판결의 입장은 파산채무자의 갱생에는 충실할 수 있으나, 파산절차의 또다른 한 축인 채권자를 사실상 완전히 소 외시킨다는 점에 대한 고려는 부족한 것이 아닌가 생각된다. ‘악의’에는 과 실도 포함된다고 해석하는 것이 바람직하며, 다만 동시폐지와 같이 배당이 이루어지지 않는 경우에는 과실의 존재를 엄격하게, 배당이 이루어지게 되 는 경우에는 과실의 존재를 보다 완화하여 인정하는 태도가 보다 유연하게 여러 가지 경우를 대처할 수 있는 방안이 아닌가 생각된다.


In a case a debtor omits certain creditor on the creditor list in personal bankruptcy procedures, and the creditor does not know about adjudication of bankruptcy, how much legal protection can such creditor get? In a case a creditor is omitted on the creditor list, the person can hardly get various procedural protections that are provided in the current Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of debtor (hereinafter “Law”), and is completely excluded in distribution procedure ultimately. For example, a creditor who is omitted on the creditor list cannot get the notice of bankruptcy, present his/her opinion to court and get his/her distribution. However, it is rare that these cases cause troubles in practical business. It is mainly because in most cases, the creditor does not have any portion to actual dividend at the distribution procedure, even the creditor knew about it beforehand. The Supreme Court determines that, because of Article 349 Item 6, of former Bankruptcy Act(Law Article 566 Item 7) which stipulates that claims not recorded on the creditor list by a bankrupt with ill will should not be exempted, is applied when a bankrupt knows about existence of credit before decision of exemption from responsibility, but does not enter it on the creditor list, whereas in a case where a bankrupt does not know about existence of claim is not applied to the law, regardless of whether the bankrupt commits a fault of not entering on the creditor list or not. According to this decision, in a case where a debtor does not know about existence of credit by mistake is excluded from the ‘ill will(惡意)’. Eventually, ‘ill will’ indicates a case that a bankrupt does not enter on the creditor list with intention that is close to willfulness as well as knowledge about existence of credit. However, even though the relevant decisions help rehabilitation of abankruptcy, these decisions isolate a creditor who is another axis in bankruptcy procedures. Therefore, it is desirable to interpret that ‘ill will’ also includes a debtor's mistakes. In deciding a debtor's mistake, the existence of mistake should be recognized strictly when distribution is not performed like in the simultaneous abolition of distribution procedure, but recognized mildly when distribution is performed.


In a case a debtor omits certain creditor on the creditor list in personal bankruptcy procedures, and the creditor does not know about adjudication of bankruptcy, how much legal protection can such creditor get? In a case a creditor is omitted on the creditor list, the person can hardly get various procedural protections that are provided in the current Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of debtor (hereinafter “Law”), and is completely excluded in distribution procedure ultimately. For example, a creditor who is omitted on the creditor list cannot get the notice of bankruptcy, present his/her opinion to court and get his/her distribution. However, it is rare that these cases cause troubles in practical business. It is mainly because in most cases, the creditor does not have any portion to actual dividend at the distribution procedure, even the creditor knew about it beforehand. The Supreme Court determines that, because of Article 349 Item 6, of former Bankruptcy Act(Law Article 566 Item 7) which stipulates that claims not recorded on the creditor list by a bankrupt with ill will should not be exempted, is applied when a bankrupt knows about existence of credit before decision of exemption from responsibility, but does not enter it on the creditor list, whereas in a case where a bankrupt does not know about existence of claim is not applied to the law, regardless of whether the bankrupt commits a fault of not entering on the creditor list or not. According to this decision, in a case where a debtor does not know about existence of credit by mistake is excluded from the ‘ill will(惡意)’. Eventually, ‘ill will’ indicates a case that a bankrupt does not enter on the creditor list with intention that is close to willfulness as well as knowledge about existence of credit. However, even though the relevant decisions help rehabilitation of abankruptcy, these decisions isolate a creditor who is another axis in bankruptcy procedures. Therefore, it is desirable to interpret that ‘ill will’ also includes a debtor's mistakes. In deciding a debtor's mistake, the existence of mistake should be recognized strictly when distribution is not performed like in the simultaneous abolition of distribution procedure, but recognized mildly when distribution is performed.