초록 열기/닫기 버튼
채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제566조 제7호는 채권자가 채무자의 악의를 입증하지 못하는 한 채권자목록에 기재하지 아니한 청구권에 대해서도 면책의 효력을 부여함으로써 면책채권의 범위를 지나치게 확대하고 있다. 이는 파산절차를 악용하는 파산채무자의 수가 적지 않고, 법원의 개인파산절차에 대한 감독이 충분히 이루어지지 않음에도 불구하고, 채무자에게 책임 있는 사유로 채권자목록에 기재되지 아니한 채권자에게 과도한 입증의 부담을 지우고 있다는 점에서 위헌의 소지가 있다. 구체적으로 살펴보면, 채무자회생법 제566조 제7호는 스스로의 귀책사유 없이 채권자목록에 기재되지 아니한 파산채권자의 실체적 권리를 사실상 박탈함으로써 파산채권자의 재산권의 본질적 내용을 침해하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 개인파산절차의 목적을 달성하기 위해서 필요한 범위를 넘어 당해 파산절차에 참여하지 아니한 파산채권자의 절차적 권리를 지나치게 제한함으로써 적법절차의 원칙을 위배하고 있다. 또한 자신이 보유하고 있는 채권을 법원에 의하여 강제적으로 감축당하게 되었지만 채권의 일부에 대한 변제를 받을 수 있는 개인회생채권자보다 채권의 전부에 대하여 변제를 받을 가능성이 거의 없는 파산채권자를 절차적으로 보호해야 할 필요가 더 큰 것임에도 불구하고, 파산적 청산을 통한 배당 이외에는 아무런 이익을 기대할 수 없는 파산채권자의 절차적 권리를 개인회생채권자보다 더 제한함으로써 합리적 이유 없이 파산채권자를 차별하고 있고, 채권자목록에 기재되어 절차적 권리를 행사하고 배당을 수령할 수 있는 파산채권자와 그렇지 못한 파산채권자를 합리적 이유 없이 동일하게 취급함으로써 평등원칙에도 위배되는 결과를 낳고 있다.
Clause 7, article 556 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “the Clause”) provides the debtor with a rather feasible solution towards economic restoration, by stipulating that the debtor be discharged from claims not included in the schedule of creditors, unless the creditor proves that the debtor knowingly left out his or her particular claim. However, the clause leaves room for consideration, for it may be viewed unconstitutional in the aspect that it places excessive burden on creditors who are not on the schedule of creditors due to reasons attributable to debtors; the clause establishes a wide range of immunity for debtors while requiring the creditor to prove that the debtor knowingly left out the creditor’s claim from the schedule of creditors for a certain claim to be considered non-dischargeable. Such tolerance, in the current atmosphere where debtors acting in bad faith are common and bankruptcy courts usually fail to provide each case with sufficient supervision, may be evaluated as an infringement on property rights of creditors. First of all, the Clause violates essential aspects of creditors’ property rights by making it practically impossible for bankruptcy creditors to stake a claim on what is rightfully theirs once it is not included on the schedule of creditors, regardless of reasons attributable to them. Even though certain restriction upon the rights of creditors who did not participate in the procedures of bankruptcy may be necessary in order to achieve the goals of individual bankruptcy proceedings, the Clause violates the principle of proportionality of property regulation in that it does not limit the disadvantage of creditors to an appropriate level. Comprehensively looking into the many articles restricting bankruptcy creditors’ rights, it is apparent that the Clause infringes on the procedural rights of creditors that are not on the schedule of creditors, and goes against the principle of due process by limiting their substantive rights to an extent that is disproportionate. Finally, there is no reason to treat creditors in rehabilitation proceedings and creditors in bankruptcy proceedings differently, since they are in identical positions of losing their claims unwillingly due to courts acting on behalf of the recovery of honest, yet unfortunate debtors who have acted in good faith. Rather, considering the fact that while creditors in rehabilitation proceedings are at least given the benefit of partial reimbursement, the possibility of reimbursement is close to zero for creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, the latter group calls for further protection procedure-wise. Yet the Clause limits the rights of the latter, who are already devastated by the reality of assuming only the amount distributed to them after liquidation, more than that of the former. Furthermore, taking into account that it is impossible for creditors of individual bankruptcy case excluded from the schedule of creditors to receive distribution, there is no rational reason to discriminate them from those on the schedule of creditors by presuming that their bankruptcy claims are discharged from reimbursement. In these aspects, compared to creditors in rehabilitation proceedings or creditors on the schedule of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, the Clause discriminates bankruptcy creditors, who were involuntarily excluded from the bankruptcy process, without any plausible reason.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act §556⑦, discharge, non-dischargeable claim, knowingly, burden of proof
