파산관재인이 권리변동의 성립요건인 '등기행위'를 부인했더라도 그 원인행위인 '출연행위'가 여전히 유효하다면, 수익자는 부인등기가 되기 이전까지 해당 부동산을 점유·사용할 정당한 권원이 있으므로, 부당이득반환 의무를 부담하지 않는다고 판시한 사례.

1. 사안

채무자 회사(이하 ‘채무자’)가 파산선고 전 피고 재단법인에게 부동산을 출연하고 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었는데, 이후 채무자의 파산관재인(원고)이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이하 ‘채무자회생법’) 제394조 제1항에 따른 등기부인 청구로 위 소유권이전등기 (이하 ‘이 사건 등기’)만을 부인하는 판결을 받아 피고 명의의 이 사건 등기를 부인하는 내용의 등기(이하 ‘이 사건 부인등기’)가 마쳐진 후, 피고를 상대로 소유권이전등기 시점부터 이 사건 부인등기가 마쳐진 전날까지 부동산을 점유·사용한 것에 대해 부당이득 반환을 청구한 사안임.

2. 원심의 판단

Pursuant to the amendment published in the Official Gazette dated 10 December 2025, No. 33103, the wording “1/1/2026” in Temporary Article 1 of the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Implementation of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the “Communiqué”) has been replaced with “1/1/2027”, and the amendment entered into force on the date of its publication.

The answer is “no”, following a recent decision by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (Court) which provides welcome guidance on the admission of proofs of debt.

The United Arab Emirates has established a sophisticated legal framework for financial restructuring and bankruptcy, most recently embodied in Federal Decree Law No. 51 of 2023 (the Insolvency Law). The Insolvency Law is not only a technical instrument addressing debtor and creditor interests but also a legislative tool designed to protect the broader public interest and uphold public order.

清算退出是私募基金全生命周期的“最后一公里”，直接关系投资者本金回收、基金财产安全处置及管理人合规责任闭环。若管理人怠于履行清算义务，不仅会触发监管处罚，更可能引发投资者集体仲裁/诉讼，严重损害市场声誉。

此前，本系列指南已覆盖基金募集、投资运作、投后管理等环节的合规要点；本篇作为第四篇，将聚焦清算退出环节的高频违规场景，拆解法律风险、明确监管依据、提供可落地的自查与整改方案，为管理人合规开展清算工作提供指引。

一、私募基金管理人怠于履行清算义务

1、典型案例简介

北京中扶私募基金有限责任公司（化名，以下称“中扶公司”）系在中国基金业协会登记的股权类私募基金管理人。2018年5月，中扶公司备案“中扶3号基金”（以下称“涉案基金”），募集规模人民币5,000万元，合伙协议明确约定基金存续期为5年，其中前4年为投资期，最后1年为退出期。涉案基金备案完成后完成对2家标的企业的股权投资，并约定如被投企业未在约定时间内完成上市或并购，被投企业实控人需按“本金+年化8%收益”的价格回购涉案基金持有的股权。

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Considering Company Liquidation in Poland?

１　はじめに

　会社について債権放棄を伴う私的整理や法的整理を行う 際、経営者の保証債務については経営者保証ガイドライン （以下「GL」）を利用した保証債務整理を検討するところ、保 証人である経営者が金融機関の個人ローンやクレジットカー ドローン等の個人借入を行っていたという場合があります。本 稿では、保証人個人の借入に関するGL上の取扱いをご説明 いたします1 。

２ 固有債権者のGL上の取扱い

GLにおける対象債権者とは、「中小企業に対する金融債 権を有する金融機関等であって、現に経営者に対して保証 債権を有するもの」と定められており、具体的には、金融機 関、信用保証協会、サービサー等を指します（GL1、 GLQ1-1）。固有債権者は、本来的な対象債権者ではありま せん。 しかし、GLでは固有債権についても債務整理の対象にす ることを禁止しておらず、「弁済計画の履行に重大な影響を 及ぼす恐れのある債権者については、対象債権者に含める ことができる」（GL7(3)④ロ）とされています2 。すなわち、固有 債権者の同意があれば、固有債権を含めて債務整理を行う ことができます。

３ 固有債権者との協議

It is a recurring practical issue in insolvency proceedings how the creditor may prove that an invoice was duly communicated to the debtor. In a recent decision, the Hungarian court examined if screenshots taken from an electronic invoicing system suffice to prove delivery and awareness of an invoice, in the absence of traditional postal proof. In our article we analyse the decision.

1. Facts of the case

Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship.