【Holding】
[1] Whether a worker's claim for damages arising from the custodian's delay, after the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings, in performing the obligation to pay the worker's wage and severance pay claims constitutes a common benefit claim under Article 179(1)5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (affirmative), and whether a worker's claim for damages arising from the debtor's failure to pay the worker's wages and severance pay before the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings constitutes a rehabilitation claim under Article 118 subparag. 1 of the same Act (affirmative) / Whether the same applies in simplified rehabilitation proceedings (affirmative)
[2] In a case where A, who had worked at B company and retired but did not receive allowances for unused annual leave and severance pay from B company, agreed with B company to receive them in five installments; when B company failed to pay the agreed amounts under the agreement, A filed a suit for wages on that cause of action, and a recommendation decision for performance was rendered stating that "B company shall pay A the said amounts and damages for delay thereon"; and after a decision to commence simplified rehabilitation proceedings against B company, A applied for a seizure and collection order of claims against B company's deposit and other claims against third-party debtors using the recommendation decision for performance as the title of execution, the Court held that, among the claims stated in the recommendation decision for performance, the principal claim and the claim for damages for delay thereon accruing from the date of the decision to commence simplified rehabilitation proceedings are common benefit claims, so that compulsory execution based thereon is not subject to the prohibitive effect of the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings; nevertheless, the lower court erred in its misapprehension of legal principles by holding that all of the claims stated in the recommendation decision for performance were rehabilitation claims and that A's application for a seizure and collection order of claims could not be permitted
【Summary of Order】
[1] A decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings takes effect from the time of the decision [Article 49(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter the "Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act")], and when a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings is rendered, compulsory execution against the debtor's property based on rehabilitation claims is prohibited (Article 58(1)2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). However, wage and severance pay claims held by workers against the debtor constitute common benefit claims and must be paid from time to time, not through the rehabilitation proceedings, in priority over rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights (Articles 179(1)10 and 180(1) and (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). The same applies to simplified rehabilitation proceedings, to which the provisions of Part II (Rehabilitation Proceedings) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 293-3(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
Meanwhile, a worker's claim for damages arising from the custodian's delay, after the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings, in performing the above obligation constitutes a common benefit claim as "a claim arising from an act performed by the custodian after the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with respect to the business and property of the debtor" under Article 179(1)5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. However, a worker's claim for damages arising from the debtor's failure to pay the worker's wages and severance pay before the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings constitutes a rehabilitation claim as "a property claim against the debtor arising from causes before the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings" under Article 118 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
[2] In a case where A, who had worked at B company and retired but did not receive allowances for unused annual leave and severance pay from B company, agreed with B company to receive them in five installments; when B company failed to pay the agreed amounts under the agreement, A filed a suit for wages on that cause of action, and a recommendation decision for performance was rendered stating that "B company shall pay A the said amounts and damages for delay thereon"; and after a decision to commence simplified rehabilitation proceedings against B company, A applied for a seizure and collection order of claims against B company's deposit and other claims against third-party debtors using the recommendation decision for performance as the title of execution, the Court held as follows: among the claims stated in the recommendation decision for performance, the principal claim is the agreed amount corresponding to the allowances for unused annual leave and severance pay that A did not receive from B company, and thus constitutes a common benefit claim as "workers' wages and severance pay" under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; even though A, at B company's request, agreed to convert the allowances for unused annual leave and severance pay into a loan and receive payment in five installments, the loan is in substance merely a modified form of the wage or severance pay obligation for which B company is responsible to A and can hardly be regarded as a separate obligation; and the claim for damages for delay thereon accruing from the date of the decision to commence simplified rehabilitation proceedings constitutes a common benefit claim as "a claim arising from borrowing of funds or other acts performed by the custodian after the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings with respect to the business and property of the debtor" under subparagraph 5 of the same paragraph; therefore, compulsory execution based on the principal claim and the claim for damages for delay is not subject to the prohibitive effect of the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings; nevertheless, the lower court erred in its misapprehension of legal principles by holding that all of the claims stated in the recommendation decision for performance were rehabilitation claims and that A's application for a seizure and collection order of claims could not be permitted.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Articles 49(3), 58(1)2, 118 subparag. 1, 179(1)5 and 10, 180(1) and (2), and 293-3(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act [2] Articles 49(3), 58(1)2, 118 subparag. 1, 179(1)5 and 10, 180(1) and (2), 255, and 293-3(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da64908, November 20, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 2348)
(Source: Supreme Court Order 2026Ma6750, August 12, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail