회생절차에서 채무자의 수입 누락과소송사기죄의 성부 - 대법원 2025. 6. 12. 선고 2024도13139 판결 -

In rehabilitation proceedings, as in other judicial proceedings, litigation fraud can be established. This is because once a rehabilitation plan is approved, it immediately reduces creditors' amount of claim and extends repayment periods, meaning the approval decision constitutes a disposition of property. The foundation of rehabilitation proceedings lies in the preparation of a rehabilitation plan based on assets and estimated future total income, the collective consent of interested parties to this plan, court approval, the alteration of rights and obligations according to the finalized repayment plan, and the subsequent repayment. Therefore, if the administrator(debtor) falsely states facts or manipulates relevant materials concerning the assets and future estimated total income that form the basis of the rehabilitation proceedings, it may constitute fraudulent conduct. However, given the special nature of rehabilitation proceedings—namely, the purpose of the proceedings, the extent of the rehabilitation court's involvement in the process, and the degree of reliance on reports and related materials submitted by the administrator, it cannot be deemed fraudulent conduct merely to omit assets or future income. Rather, it should be considered fraudulent conduct only when active means are used to conceal or hide such information, and this concealment or hiding, combined with the omission of reporting or documentation, constitutes fraudulent conduct. The subject judgment appropriately applied strict scrutiny to establish fraud given the unique nature of rehabilitation proceedings. However, the ruling's stated criterion that “the defendant's claim must be closely related to the requirements for approval of the rehabilitation plan and must reach the level where it could alter the decision on approval and its content” is not clearly defined. This creates difficulties in determining the specific object of the fraud and leaves ambiguity in distinguishing between cases where fraud itself is not recognized and cases where fraud is recognized but causation is denied, which is somewhat regrettable.