Priority in Insolvency Proceedings

( Soogeun Oh ),( Heejong Song ) 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2008 Journal of Korean Law Vol.7 No.2

Insolvency unveils the genuine virtue of the concept of priority. Attempts, however, have proved that the task of arranging relevant claims in a single line of order according to their priority is quite difficult and complicated in insolvency proceedings. The reason lies in the fact that the concept of priority contains three factors; time, amount and method of collection. In standard non-insolvency compulsory executions, the priority structure affords certain claims to clearly precede others in time and amount. In this case, the superior creditor is entitled to be paid in full before and to the exclusion of other junior creditors. There is no other method of collection. Priority structures differ with respect to each particular insolvency proceeding. Like noninsolvency execution procedures, the bankruptcy proceeding relates to the distribution of the value of the property belonging to the debtor as of the date of the proceeding. Secured claims are not restricted by the bankruptcy proceeding. As such, it is possible to arrange estate claims and bankruptcy claims in a single line of order. The rehabilitation proceeding, which aims to rehabilitate the debtor and to repay creditors using not only the assets belonging to the debtor at present but also future earnings, retains a complicated priority structure. Since creditors are to be paid according to the terms and conditions of the rehabilitation plan over a period which may extend for as long as ten years, the governing rule of priority in the rehabilitation proceeding is difficult to understand without distinguishing the separate components of the concept; time , amount and method of collection. Creditors with the right of reclamation or right of separation are not subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding. Creditors with common benefit claims are subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding but not to the rehabilitation plan. These creditors in effect enjoy priority over other creditors who are subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding with respect to the method of collection. Nevertheless, to generalize that common benefit creditors have priority over other creditors in terms of time and amount would be inaccurate. The chance that other creditors will be paid no later in time and no less in amount than common benefit creditors exists. Although Article 217 of the DRBL provides the respective priorities of secured rehabilitation claims, rehabilitation claims and stock/equity, the list does not mean that creditors in a higher position are to be paid prior to and more than those in a lower position. The rehabilitation plan may provide general rehabilitation creditors payment before secured rehabilitation creditors. According to precedents and prevailing theories, the hierarchy given in Article 217 does not mean superior creditors are entitled to absolute priority, but rather fair and equitable discrimination between each rank is required. Creditors in the same class can be treated differently as far as the discrimination is reasonable. The bottom floor of such flexibility is the assurance of the liquidation value. It is fair to say that priority in the rehabilitation proceeding is not as rigid as in the bankruptcy proceeding and partly negotiable as far as the liquidation value is assured. The rehabilitation plan, a reflection of the negotiations, shows the final list of priority, which is decided in separate terms of time and amount. In comparison, priority in the rehabilitation proceeding for individuals is rather simple because secured creditors are not restricted by the proceeding and the payment plan covers only general creditors. We found that priority in insolvency proceedings cannot be explained by a list that simply lines one claim after another. It is necessary to consider the factors of time, amount and method of collection in order to understand the priority structure in insolvency proceedings. Rights of reclamation and the right of separation in effect give priority to its holders because properties related to such rights are beyond the reach of even creditors with the highest priority. Any property that is not included in insolvency estates also ignores priority. Beside insolvency laws and laws directly related to debt collection, several laws have provisions that alter the priority of certain types of creditors with respect to the amount or method of collection. These also provide causes that make it difficult to explain priority in insolvency proceeding with a linear list. A separate approach to the issue of priority in terms of time and amount will serve as the solution to ease such complexity.

파산입법의 본질에 관한 연구

오수근(Oh, Soogeun) 성곡언론문화재단 1995 성곡논총 Vol.26 No.1

도산절차에서 형성권의 취급

오수근(OH Soogeun) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.28 No.4

형성권은 입법자가 정의한 개념이 아니고 해석자가 이해를 위하여 설정한 개념이다. 형성권으로 인식되는 권리를 분석해 보면 형성권은 “일방적인 법률행위 또는 소송을 통해 자신 또는 타인의 법률관계의 변동을 촉발하는 힘을 내용으로 하는 권리“로 정의할 수 있다. 채무자회생법의 적용을 받는 권리를 ‘재산상 청구권’이라고 입법자가 규정하였는데 이 규정을 근거로 형성권은 도산절차의 적용을 받지 않는다고 해석하는 것은 옳지 않다. 채무자회생법의 해당 규정은 법제사적으로 볼 때 형성권의 성립 시점 이전에 만들어졌다. 형성권의 핵심적 속성은 도산절차로부터 형성권을 배제할 이유를 제시하지 않는다. 어떤 권리를 도산법의 적용에서 배제할 것인가는 채권자 평등과 공정형평의 원칙 그리고 도산재단의 확보라는 채무자회생법의 이념에 따라 결정하여야 한다. 형성권 전체를 대상으로 하여 도산절차에서의 처리방법을 논하는 것은 바람직하지 않다. 채무자회생법의 ‘재산상 청구권’은 채무자회생법의 목적에 맞추어 해석하면 된다. ‘재산상의 청구권’은 채무자의 재산(또는 도산재단)과 연결된 개념이므로 해당 권리가 채무자의 재산에서 만족을 얻어야 하는 것이라면 재산상 청구권이고 채무자의 재산과 무관하다면 재산상 청구권이 아니다. Right to alter legal relationship was formulated not by legislators but by commentators. It can be defined as the right which is entitled to initiate the change of legal relationship through expression of intent or law suit. The Korean insolvency law provided for claims on property as claims subject to insolvency procedures. It is not fair to exclude rights to alter legal relationship from insolvency procedures. The concept of claims on property was established before the formulation of the concept of rights to alter legal relationship. The attribute to rights to alter legal relationship has no ground for the exclusion. The interpretation of insolvency law should be subject to the principle of equality and the principle of fair and equity. It is not desirable to decide how to treat rights to alter legal relationship as a whole in insolvency procedures. A certain right should be subject to insolvency procedure as claim on property if it is to be satisfied from the insolvency estate regardless of whether it is right to alter legal relationship or not.

Legal Interpretation in Korea

오수근,송희종 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2008 法學論集 Vol.12 No.2

‘무엇이 법인가?’ 라는 물음은 실제로 법치주의를 적용하고자 하는 경우에 부딪히지 않을 수 없다. 법령해석을 통하여 결국 구체적으로 적용할 수 있는 ‘법’이 무엇인지 의미를 가지게 된다. 한국에서의 법령해석은 법치주의 및 사법권의 독립을 기초로 여러 법령해석기관에 의하여 행해진다. ‘법’에는 헌법, 법률을 비롯하여 다양한 형태의 법령이 존재하는데 여러 법령들간 위계질서가 법령해석에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴본다.법령해석은 다양하게 구별할 수 있는데 해석의 대상의 관점에서는 헌법해석과 법령해석으로 구별할 수 있으며 해석의 방법의 관점에서는 입법해석, 행정해석, 사법해석으로 구별할 수 있는데 이들은 모두 유권적 해석방법이라는 특징을 가진다. 법령해석이 구체적으로 어떻게 작용하는지 살펴보기 위하여 헌법해석의 예로는 신행정수도건설에관한특별조치법에 대한 헌법재판소 결정례를 살펴보았으며 및 법률해석의 예로 위법건축물 시정명령 취소소송에서 법원 및 행정부간 동일한 건축법 규정을 어떻게 다르게 해석하는지 살펴보았다. 한국의 법령해석제도는 입법제도의 발전상 법치주의의 발전을 통하여 볼 수 있다. 법치주의 및 법령해석은 양적, 질적으로 많은 발전이 있었다. 헌법재판소의 설립, 행정처분에 대한 사법심사의 확대는 지난 몇 십 년간 발전을 일부 반영한다. The first question when applying the principle of the rule of law is “what is law?” not in an abstract sense but in a concrete sense. Law, in a more practical and concrete sense, is the product of legal interpretation. Based on the fundamental principle of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, legal interpretation in Korea is conducted by a number of institutions. Since, the term ‘law’ encompasses various forms of legislation from the Constitution to statutes enacted by governmental agencies in a hierarchical order, we shall look to how the hierarchy effects legal interpretation upon which we will be able to reveal the distinction between constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation. Another distinction that will we covered with respect to the method or rather the mode of interpretation is the distinction among legislative interpretation, administrative interpretation and judicial interpretation; all which are commonly referred to as authoritative interpretation. The advance and improvement of the system of legal interpretation in Korea can be inferred from the advance of the rule of law within the litigation system. The stablishment of the Constitutional Court and the increase in judicial reviews on administrative decisions denote how the dominance of the rule of law and the positive role of legal interpretation has improved both in quantity and quality.

도산절차에서 우선순위 : 우선순위의 의미에 대한 새로운 해석

오수근,정문경 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2009 法學論集 Vol.13 No.2

채무자가 충분한 자산을 보유하고 있어 모든 채무를 변제할 수 있다면 우선순위는 별로 문제가 안 된다. 그러나 채무자의 자력이 부족한 경우 채권자들은 우선순위에 따라 변제를 받게 된다. 그래서 채무자가 도산상태에 처하면 우선순위는 채권의 만족 여부의 기준이 된다. 종래 우선순위에 대한 논의는 단선적인 구조에 채권자를 자리매김하는 형식이었다. 그러나 이러한 접근방법은 회생절차에서 왜 무담보채권자가 담보부권자보다 ‘먼저’ 받아갈 수 있는지, 공익채권자가 담보채권자에 우선하여 변제를 받는다는 규정이 무슨 의미인지를 설명하지 못한다. 이 논문은 이러한 의문에서 출발하여 두 가지 시도를 하였다. 하나는 우선순위의 개념에 변제시기, 변제액, 권리행사 방법이라는 세 가지 요소가 있음을 규명하는 일이다. 일반민사집행절차나 파산절차에서 이러한 요소가 인식되지 않은 것은 각 요소가 동시에 작용했기 때문이다. 그러나 변제가 장기에 걸쳐 변제계획에 따라 이루어지는 회생절차에서는 이러한 요소가 별개로 작용하므로 구분하여 인식할 수 있다. 다른 하나는 우선순위에 영향을 주는 현행 규정과 법원칙을 망라하는 일이다. 각종 법률에서 직접 우선권을 규정하는 경우도 있고, 우선순위의 의미를 규정한 경우도 있다. 그러한 규정들이 모두 우선순위의 내용을 결정하게 된다. When the debtor has enough assets and is fully capable of performing all its obligations, the problem of priority among creditors does not attract much attention. However, when the debtor lacks sufficient resource, creditors are faced with the risk of losing the value of their claim depending on where they stand in line. Priority is the key in determining how creditors, employees, shareholders and government agencies will be able to satisfy their rights in the event the debtor becomes insolvent. In non-insolvency compulsory executions creditors against the same debtor are organized to create a single lined priority structure. The creditor standing before in line is entitled to satisfy its claim while junior creditors are restricted from the chance to satisfy their rights until their superiors have been paid in full. Discussions in the past on the issue of priority in insolvency proceedings premised a liner priority structure used to define priority in non-insolvency procedures. While this approach is valid with respect to bankruptcy proceedings which distributes the present value of the insolvent debtor, however, in order to adequately describe the priority structure that governs rehabilitation proceedings it is necessary to examine the classification of claims in a rehabilitation proceeding and how they are entitled to be paid in terms of time and amount. It is also necessary to determine how certain creditors enjoy priority in terms of the method by which it collects its debts. The analysis will reveal that insofar as the rehabilitation proceeding is concerned the order of common benefit claims, secured rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation claims depends on many variables.

會計監査의 법적 의미

오수근 한국상사판례학회 2002 상사판례연구 Vol.13 No.-

Auditing reports normally state In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial statements ... . The author interprets fair as auditors confirmation on the absence of material fraud or errors in financial statements. He finds the ground of his argument in the purpose of auditing, which is to enhance the reliabilit of financial statements and should be free from material fraud and errors for the purpose. Therefore, auditors have responsibility to find out material fraud and errors and should not express fair without conviction and evidence. He also concludes that auditing by inside auditors, who are members of board of directors under the Commercial Code ( the Code ), is intrinsically almost same as one by outside auditors under the Act on Outside Audit of Stock Corporations ( the Outside Audit Act ) as far as accounting is concerned. For these reasons, he suggests firstly that inside auditors under the Code should folow the Audition Standards and its Rules because they are tested in domestic use and accepted in international practices. Secondly he argues that the provisions on auditing in the Code should be interpreted as compatible as possible with Auditing Standards.So the term correct or fit should be understood to amend the reevant provisions in the Code to synchronize the concept of financial statements and the principles of auditing under the Outside Audit Act. Lastly, the legl status of auditors under the Code and its responsibility should be reviewed. audition can be done successfully by outside auditors under the Code can play their role as an internal monitoring mechanism in accounting process and a compliance watchdog.