초록 열기/닫기 버튼


The issue of whether to adopt the concepts of “automatic stay” and “absolute priority rule” into the rehabilitation regime has been hotly and persistently debated among bankruptcy scholars and practitioners in Korea and still being so over the expert panel discussion on amending the Korean Insolvency Act being held under the auspice of the Ministry of Justice. This article sets forth the basic justifications for adopting those concepts and refutes certain well-known arguments submitted against such adoption. The apprehension that the automatic stay mechanism could be abused by those debtors who intend to seek temporary debt suspension or to avoid criminal punishment under the Illegal Check Control Act is misplaced. The argument that the absolute priority rule will do harm in attaining such policy goals as mitigating conflicts between the debtholders and the equityholders, inducing early bankruptcy filings, and encouraging new value contribution is at most doubtful.


The issue of whether to adopt the concepts of “automatic stay” and “absolute priority rule” into the rehabilitation regime has been hotly and persistently debated among bankruptcy scholars and practitioners in Korea and still being so over the expert panel discussion on amending the Korean Insolvency Act being held under the auspice of the Ministry of Justice. This article sets forth the basic justifications for adopting those concepts and refutes certain well-known arguments submitted against such adoption. The apprehension that the automatic stay mechanism could be abused by those debtors who intend to seek temporary debt suspension or to avoid criminal punishment under the Illegal Check Control Act is misplaced. The argument that the absolute priority rule will do harm in attaining such policy goals as mitigating conflicts between the debtholders and the equityholders, inducing early bankruptcy filings, and encouraging new value contribution is at most doubtful.