Attorney Kim Yong-dae of Hanbyol Law LLC explained that in the case of Mr. A, who met the requirements for reapplying for personal rehabilitation (five years having passed since the discharge order became final), it is customary for the court not to issue a stay order upon the second application for personal rehabilitation. He pointed out that the court exercises much greater caution in granting a stay order for a second application than it does for the first, out of concern that the system might be abused.

Attorney Kim explained that a stay order prevents creditors from demanding payment or seizing assets until the court issues a commencement order; however, he warned that in the case of a reapplication, it is difficult to expect such protection, and the debtor may remain exposed to collection efforts. Accordingly, he emphasized the need to prepare response strategies and procedures that reflect the court’s likely stance during the preparation phase for the reapplication.

Attorney Kim Yong-dae’s advice suggests that, given the possibility of an injunction being denied, practitioners must pursue a dual approach of securing a prompt opening decision while simultaneously implementing alternative response measures.