초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Korean Civil Execution Act, Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and obligee's right of revocation in 407 of Civil Act adopt the idea of equality of creditors. However, the idea of equality of creditors are empty in the process of practice. In the process of bankruptcy, there are several creditors who have priority such as a creditor who has a priority claim by the relevant act. However, the real problem is that the debtor’s ability to assume its executory contract to the creditor can be functioned as a hidden priority—a “secret lien”—confounding the bondholders’ expectations. The priority claim made by the financing after bankruptcy also has same problem. In this regard, the idea of equality of creditors became empty and have not been functioned properly anymore. In the obligee's right of revocation in 407 of Civil Act, the Act adopts the idea of equality of creditors. Whereas, the Supreme court decided that the creditor who get the right to execute can has a priority to be paid by implementing offset. The idea of equality of creditors in the obligee's right of revocation cannot be functioned. In this regards, the proposal which the priority rule should be adopted will be present based on the comparison between priority rule and equality rule. For this, the ideas of equality of creditors in the various Korean Acts and pro and cons between priority rule and equality rule are reviewed. Afterwards, the issues which are against to the idea of equality of creditors in the bankruptcy process and obligee's right of revocation are reviewed and the function of idea of equality of creditors will be reconsidered.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
equality of creditors, equality rule, priority rule, priority claim, obligee's right of revocation
