보험계약상 최대선의의 원칙에 관한 연혁적 고찰

고재종 한국상사법학회 2008 商事法硏究 Vol.27 No.1

The expression “Utmost Good faith” appear to derive from the idea of “Uberrimae fidei” There is in a controversy with the need of the same concept in the insurance contract. But in the insurance contract, the trust must be kept among insurance contract parties, namely the insurer, the insured etc. and to compare with the other general contract, the insurance contract required in the utmost good faith. In this thesis, I will inquire into the means of the good faith or the Utmost good faith in the insurance contract. To put it concretely, I will consider the corrective definition and the coverage of the utmost good faith in the insurance contract. In the method, I will choose the historical survey method in the law system of the several countries such as Italy, France, Spain and British. By the investigation result, the rule of the good faith has been applied to the common law and the transaction usage related the other contract as well as the insurance contract for a long time. Especially, in the insurance contract, it has been requested in the utmost good faith that all of the insurer and the insured keep their duties. Furthermore, the duty is fulfilled from the formation of the contract to the performance of the contract. The content of the duty is explained in this paper concretely. The expression “Utmost Good faith” appear to derive from the idea of “Uberrimae fidei” There is in a controversy with the need of the same concept in the insurance contract. But in the insurance contract, the trust must be kept among insurance contract parties, namely the insurer, the insured etc. and to compare with the other general contract, the insurance contract required in the utmost good faith. In this thesis, I will inquire into the means of the good faith or the Utmost good faith in the insurance contract. To put it concretely, I will consider the corrective definition and the coverage of the utmost good faith in the insurance contract. In the method, I will choose the historical survey method in the law system of the several countries such as Italy, France, Spain and British. By the investigation result, the rule of the good faith has been applied to the common law and the transaction usage related the other contract as well as the insurance contract for a long time. Especially, in the insurance contract, it has been requested in the utmost good faith that all of the insurer and the insured keep their duties. Furthermore, the duty is fulfilled from the formation of the contract to the performance of the contract. The content of the duty is explained in this paper concretely.

신의칙의 본질적 요소와 신의칙 적용방법의 체계화

김영호 한국상사법학회 2010 商事法硏究 Vol.28 No.4

The good faith doctrine could be a useful tool of the law application and the interpretation of law and contract. But there may be also a risk of impairing the legal consistency. By this reason they tried to categorize and systemize the type and legal theories on the violation of good faith doctrine in many countries. They made an much effort to do so in order to secure the legal consistency. What is the conceptual characteristics of good faith? The phrase of good faith is used in a variety of contexts. Meaning of good faith is defined in UCC 1-201(2) as “honesty in fact” and “reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in trade” And further more various conceptual characteristics of good faith including the honesty and fairness should be deduced from the concept of good faith which has been used as legal standards of judging whether they violate the good faith doctrine. The categorizing of the good faith concept and its judgement type or methods are the first target in this paper. Through analyzing of good faith cases and related cases, we can find some conceptual characteristics of good faith. For example, 1)good faith character(that is composed of honesty and fairness), 2)non-expectation possibility, 3)social acceptance possibility,4)justice or equity and etc. Violation of good faith doctrine has been categorized and systemized according to the type of the conceptual characteristics of good faith.

The Function and Role of Good Faith under the Contract for the International Sale of Goods

Sun Ok Kim 한국무역연구원 2014 貿易 硏究 Vol.10 No.5

The doctrine of good faith in civil law was a broad and comprehensive principle, which governed the relationship of the parties including in the pre-contractual phase. However, the common law, except in insurance contracts, had traditionally rejected the doctrine of good faith in civil law. The concept of good faith had been considered as an ethical norm relating to honesty, genuineness, fair dealing and reasonableness. However it may be more ambiguous in relation to a legal notion. Good faith could not be simply defined since it has different meanings according to circumstances concerned. Good faith in commercial transactions exists in most countries, but the usefulness of its treatment and the scope of its application differ. In contract law, good faith has both a subjective sense, which requires honesty, and an objective sense, which requires compliance with standards of fair dealing. The observance of good faith under Article 7(1) can be applied to the statement and conduct by the contracting parties through the interpretation of Article 8 and usage agreed upon between the parties under Article 9. Moreover, by the application of Article 7(2) in the CISG, good faith can be properly applied in the pre-contractual stage. Article 7(2) offered the interpretative principle as guidance to solve the concerning questions not expressly settled in the CISG. If this provision is applied, the questions relating to the formation of the contract for which the CISG does not contain any specific provision would be settled by the principle of good faith. The good faith to be observed under Article 7(1) is the good faith standard in international trade. The standard to measure good faith in international transactions would be sought in reasonableness itself that has been reasonably formed to cause the fair dealing. Though good faith and reasonableness are separate norms, they also have a close interrelationship. There are a number of provisions where good faith, within the meaning of the CISG, may be implied as a standard of reasonableness, which is a test to estimate the important provisions in the Convention.

The Function and Role of Good Faith under the Contract for the International Sale of Goods

김선옥 한국무역연구원 2014 무역연구 Vol.10 No.5

The doctrine of good faith in civil law was a broad and comprehensive principle, whichgoverned the relationship of the parties including in the pre-contractual phase. However, thecommon law, except in insurance contracts, had traditionally rejected the doctrine of goodfaith in civil law. The concept of good faith had been considered as an ethical norm relating to honesty,genuineness, fair dealing and reasonableness. However it may be more ambiguous in relationto a legal notion. Good faith could not be simply defined since it has different meaningsaccording to circumstances concerned. Good faith in commercial transactions exists in mostcountries, but the usefulness of its treatment and the scope of its application differ. Incontract law, good faith has both a subjective sense, which requires honesty, and an objectivesense, which requires compliance with standards of fair dealing. The observance of good faith under Article 7(1) can be applied to the statement andconduct by the contracting parties through the interpretation of Article 8 and usage agreedupon between the parties under Article 9. Moreover, by the application of Article 7(2) in theCISG, good faith can be properly applied in the pre-contractual stage. Article 7(2) offeredthe interpretative principle as guidance to solve the concerning questions not expressly settledin the CISG. If this provision is applied, the questions relating to the formation of thecontract for which the CISG does not contain any specific provision would be settled by theprinciple of good faith. The good faith to be observed under Article 7(1) is the good faith standard in internationaltrade. The standard to measure good faith in international transactions would be sought inreasonableness itself that has been reasonably formed to cause the fair dealing. Though good faith and reasonableness are separate norms, they also have a close interrelationship. There are a number of provisions where good faith, within the meaning of the CISG, may be implied as a standard of reasonableness, which is a test to estimate the important provisions in the Convention.

Common Law에서 신의성실의 원칙

이춘원(Lee Choon Won) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.3

오늘날, 국제화에 따라 국가 간의 FTA가 체결되고, 국제거래에서 법 통일을 도모하는 노력이 행해지고 있다. 그러한 흐름 속에서 신의성실(Good Faith)의 원칙은 중요한 논의의 대상의 하나이다. 로마법의 영향을 강하게 받은 Civil Law 국가들에서는 공통적으로 신의성실이 중요한 일반 원칙(doctrine)으로서 인식되고 있다. 그러나 게르만법에서 유래하는 전통적인 법 체제를 유지해 온 영국 등 Common Law 국가에서는 신의성실을 일반원칙으로 도입하는 데에 있어서 소극적이다. 영국에서도 한 때 신의성실이 일반원칙으로 승인될 가능성은 있었으나, 19세기에 유행하였던 경제자유주의의 영향으로 나타난 ‘매수인 위험부담주의(Caveat Emptor) 원칙’ 등으로 그 가능성이 소멸되어 버렸다. 계약상 성실하고 공정하게 행동하여야 할 일반적인 의무는 지지되지 않고 있다. 영국법에서 신의성실을 일반적 의무로 받아들이지 않는 것은, 권리에 대하여 전통적으로 매우 자유로운 접근을 하는 영향 때문이다. 영국 계약법은 대등하게 거래를 하는 매우 빈틈없는 상인사이의 대규모적인 상업거래에 초점을 맞추고 있는 것이다. 미국은 Common Law 법체계에 속하지만, ‘제2차 계약법 리스테이트멘트(American Law Institute’s Restatement(2d) of Contract 1981)’ 에서 모든 계약에서 당사자에게 신의성실의 의무를 부과하여 신의성실을 계약상 일반원칙으로 인정하고 있으며, ‘통일 상사법전(Uniform Commercial Code)’에서도 신의성실에 관한 규정을 두고 있다. 미국에서 신의성실은 계약상 묵시적인 의무로 다루어지며, 정의를 위한 것으로 인식되어 계약 당사자에게 부수적인 의무를 부과한다. 신의성실 의무는 계약 당사자의 의도를 존중하며 강제적이거나 차별을 폐지할 수도 있다. 신의칙은 채무불이행의 일반적인 기준으로 중요한 역할하며, 계약서에 표현되거나 명백한 것을 빙빙 둘러 교묘히 피하지 못하도록 한다. 본 논문에서는 신의성실에 대한 비교법적인 연구로서 Common Law 법제 하에서 신의성실에 관한 입장을 정리하여 소개하였다. Today, due to globalization, FTAs were executed between countries, and an effort to promote the unity of law in the international transaction has been made. In such trend, the principle of good faith is one of the important subjects for discussion. In the civil law countries that were strongly influenced by the Rome Law, it is common that the good faith is recognized as an important doctrine. However, the common law countries, including UK, that have maintained the traditional legal system derived from the Germanic Law, are passive in adopting the principle of good faith as a doctrine. In UK, there was a possibility that the principle of good faith would be accepted as a doctrine, but such possibility was eliminated due to the ‘principle of Caveat Emptor’ emerged by the influence of economic freedom which was popular in the 19th century. The idea of a general obligation arising out of any contract to act fairly and in good faith could not be supported. The reason why the UK law does not consider good faith as a general obligation is that UK traditionally tends to have a very free approach to rights. The UK contract law focuses on large-scale commercial transactions among exact merchants who make transactions on an equal basis. The U.S is a country adopting the common law system, but the American Law Institute’s Restatement(2d) of Contract 1981 recognizes that good faith is a doctrine by imposing the obligation of good faith on contractual parties in all contracts, and the Uniform Commercial Code also have the provision of good faith. Good faith is treated as an implied provision in the contract. It imposes obligations on the contracting parties that are perceived to be in the interests of justice. The obligation of good faith ensures that the intent of the contracting parties is not frustrated. The good faith obligation does not only proscribe conduct. It may also mandate or require affirmative action. It is important to note that the doctrine is generally perceived as a default standard in the United States. It cannot be used to effect ‘an end-run around the unequivocal and express terms of the contract.’ This thesis is a research under comparative law regarding good faith, and introduces the position of good faith under the common law system.

신의칙에 의한 임금청구권 부인의 문제점 검토 -대법원 2013.12.18. 선고 2012다89399 판결에 대해-

이선신 ( Seon Sin Lee ) 안암법학회 2014 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.45

At the end of the last year (December 18th, 2013), the Supreme Court(All Judge-attending Court) had passed an important Judgment to resolve the long-time legal arguments on the Ordinary Wages(Supreme Court Ruling on December 18, 2013, 2012da89399). However, there have been some controversies around the logic of the Ruling. Among several controversies, I`ve reviewed on the problems of the Denial of Wage-claims Right with the Principle of Good Faith (Prinzip von Treu und Glauben). The Ruling, in short, sentenced that claims of additional extra wages due to inclusion of regular bonus into ordinary wage would result in unexpected, excessive costs to the company, leading to severe managerial difficulties, which cannot be acceptable in light of the notion of justice and equity, so in this type of situation, the employee`s claim is not granted due to it being a violation of Principle of Good Faith. For reference, LABOR STANDARDS ACT stipulates about overtime payment as belows; Article 56 (Extended, Night or Holiday Work) An employer shall, in addition to the ordinary wages, pay 50 percent or more thereof for extended work (work during the hours as extended pursuant to Articles 53 and 59 and the proviso of Article 69), night work (work between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.), or holiday work. Besides, CIVIL ACT stipulates about the Principle of Good Faith as belows; Article 2 (Trust and Good Faith) (1) The exercise of rights and the performance of duties shall be in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith. (2) No abuse of rights shall be permitted. Despite of the Ruling, I`ve asserted that it`s irrational to deny employee`s Wage-claims Right with Principle of Good Faith. In this paper, in order to prove the logical and legal flaws of the Ruling by Supreme Court(majority opinion) I`ve described several points demonstratively including some viewpoints in the minority opinions of the Ruling. Especially, the Ruling(majority opinion) has critical defects in that it invalidate the validity of compelling articles with Principle of Good Faith, ultimately denying employee`s Wage-claims Right which are guaranteed by CONSTITUTION and LABOR STANDARDS ACT. In this point, the Ruling (majority opinion) is a contradiction to commonly-held opinions of most legal scholars and a cotravention to judicial precedents about Principle of Good Faith, and it could severely ruin the legal stability because of the conceptual vagueness and obscurity "severe managerial difficulties", "dangerousness of subsistence of the company", those are conditions of applying Principle of Good Faith. And the Ruling(majority opinion) includes several defects comprising misjudgments about factual and legal relations in applying Principle of Good Faith. Some exemplary points of those defects are as belows(my own opinion not mentioned in minority opinion); Firstly, the assertion that Principle of Good Faith could invalidate the compelling articles is irrational, judging from the intrinsic-logical point of Principle of Good Faith. Secondly, the assertion that employee`s Wage-claims Right guaranteed by compelling articles is not granted due to it being a violation of Principle of Good Faith is against the original purpose of Principle of Good Faith. Thirdly, the assertion that Principle of Good Faith could invalidate the compelling articles is a cotravention to judicial precedents. Fourthly, the assertion that wage-negotiation between Labor- Management inevitably is based on the limited profits of company is wrong. Fifthly, the assertion that if Labor-Management knew that regular bonus could be ordinary wages Labor-Management should have done fairly different wage-negotiation is wrong. Sixthly, the assertion that Principle of Good Faith could correct the results originated from mistakes of the parties concerned in a legal action is wrong. Besides of the above-mentioned defects, I think that the Ruling comprises several unconstitutional points in that it infringes upon the Right to Pursue Happiness, the Right to use one`s own discretion that are guaranteed by Constitution, and in that it violates The Labor- Management Autonomy, The Principle of Freedom of Contract that are stipulated in Constitution. In conclusion, I`ve suggested that the Comprehensive Solution which comprises the abolition of the Ordinary Wage System and the acceptance of the new alternative Criteria-Wage System prefering Labor-Management Autonomy should be adopted to resolve the fundamental problems of the Ordinary Wage.

일본 세법상의 신의칙에 관한 이론적 고찰-학설과 판례를 중심으로

길용원 사법발전재단 2018 사법 Vol.1 No.45

Article 1(2) of the Japanese Civil Code states that “the exercise of rights and performance of duties must be done in good faith.” This is referred to as the principle of good faith, or a provision on good faith. The principle applies in a case where: (a) a person presents an argument that goes against his past words and deeds, thereby resulting in the infringement of a third party’s interests; and (b) such argument is invalidated. Whether the principle of good faith is applicable to tax laws is still being debated. While the Korean law has directly incorporated the good faith principle in its tax law through codification, Japan has not done so yet. In light of the difference between the two, the Korean law is mostly focused on the scope of the application of the good faith principle, whereas the Japanese law concerns the application of the principle itself, and this is the reason for persistence of the argument that there is no room for the application of the good faith principle in tax laws based on the principle of no taxation without law. Whether the good faith principle applies to a relationship between the tax authority and taxpayers has much relevance for the modern day tax administration. A question might arise: if the tax authority’s past practices violate the relevant statutes, and later the argument that runs counter to such practices (e.g., taxation disposition) turns out to be legitimate, does the good faith principle apply in such instance? If the good faith principle does not apply, the tax authority may opt for a legitimate argument initially made or decide to impose tax. The principle of no taxation without law intends to ensure: (a) predictability and legal stability in the relationship between taxpayers and tax administrations; and (b) that the tax authority does not impose a duty to pay tax on taxpayers for what is not primarily designated as the legal elements. Also, under the principle, the tax authority may not unilaterally decide not to collect tax or exempt a certain taxpayer from his tax liability, in an effort to uphold the equity of taxation and fairness in tax burden sharing. In that regard, the principle of no taxation without law, and particularly the requirements for application of the good faith principle and its scope of application, may subject to restriction with regard to the principle of the equity of taxation. The application of the principle of good faith in the study of tax law has been a topic of controversy, because the good faith principle itself (a) clearly violates the principle of no taxation without law or the rule of law structurally; and (b) serves as a critical means of change. Yet, the judicial cases and theories have so far affirmed the possibility of its application, seemingly because, as the Tokyo Regional Court stated in its judgment, the practical function of the good faith principle or societal demands of protecting taxpayer confidence have reached a level where they cannot be disregarded any longer. However, the said judgment merits consideration with respect to the fact that: (a) while the judgment recognizes the demands of maintaining taxpayer confidence by weighing these interests; (b) it only restrictively applies the good faith principle by using such words as “at the expense of” or “at least” in determining the requirements for the application of the good faith principle in an actual trial. 일본 민법 제1조 제2항은 “권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 따라 성실하게 하여야 한다.”라고 규정하고 있다. 이를 신의성실의 원칙 또는 신의칙에 관한 조항이라 한다. 이는 어떤 자의 과거의 언동에 반하는 주장을 인용할 경우, 그 언동을 신뢰한 상대방의 이익을 해치는 결과를 초래한다면 그 자의 해당 주장을 법률상 불허한다는 것이다. 이 신의칙을 조세법 분야에도 적용할 수 있는지 여부에 대해서는 지금까지도 논의가 되고 있는 사항이다. 우리나라의 경우 세법에서 직접 신의성실의 원칙이 적용되는 것을 명문화하여 입법적으로 어느 정도 해결하였으나, 일본의 경우에는 그렇지 못하여 우리와 차이를 보인다. 이러한 점에 비추어 우리의 경우 논의의 대상이 주로 적용범위에 관한 부분이라면 일본의 경우에는 아직까지 적용 여부 자체에 관한 논의가 있으며, 조세법률주의를 근거로 조세법분야에는 신의칙이 적용될 여지가 없다는 주장이 계속적으로 등장하고 있다. 과세관청과 납세자와의 관계에 있어 신의칙이 적용되는지 여부의 문제는 복잡하고 전문화된 현대의 조세 행정에 있어서 매우 의미 있는 것임을 부정할 수 없다. 과세관청의 과거의 언동이 법령에 위반하고 사후에 이에 반하는 주장(예를 들어 과세처분 등)자체가 적법한 경우에 신의칙이 적용되는지 여부에 관한 것으로, 이 경우 신의칙의 적용이 없다고 하면 사후에 과세관청은 본래의 적법한 주장을 하거나 또는 과세처분을 할 수 있게 된다. 조세법률주의가 의도하는 것은 조세 법률관계에 있어 납세자의 예측가능성과 법적 안정성을 확보하여 과세관청으로 하여금 일차적으로 법률의 요건으로 정해지지 않은 사실에 대해서 납세자에게 납세의무를 부과할 수 없게 하는 것이다. 한편 이와 같은 원칙은 과세의 평등, 부담의 공평 등의 요청에 따라 과세관청은 법률에서 정하는 조세 채권을 일방적으로 포기하거나 면제하는 것도 용납되지 않는다고 해석된다. 이런 점에서 조세법률주의, 특히 합법성의 원칙과의 관계에서 신의칙의 적용요건과 범위는 스스로 제한이 걸린다. 조세법 분야에 있어서 신의칙의 적용이 아직도 논란의 대상이 되는 것은 신의칙 자체가 형식적으로 조세법률주의 또는 법률에 의한 행정의 원리와 분명히 저촉되며, 중대한 변경의 수단이기 때문이다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 판례나 이론이 굳이 그 적용가능성을 긍정한 것은 도쿄 지방재판소 판결이 언급한 신의칙의 현실적 기능이나 납세자의 신뢰보호라고 하는 현실에 있어서의 사회적 요청이 더 이상 무시 못 할 정도의 수준에까지 도달하였다고 인식하였기 때문으로 보인다. 다만 이들의 이익 형량을 통해 납세자의 신뢰보호의 요청을 수긍하면서도 실제 재판에 있어서 그 적용요건을 판단함에 있어 “희생해도”, “적어도”라는 표현을 통해 극히 제한적으로 신의칙을 적용하여 판시하고 있는 점은 사실상 신의칙 적용을 부정하는 것이 아닌가 생각해볼 필요가 있다.

신의칙 위반의 법리

김영호(Yung-Ho Kim) 한국기업법학회 2009 企業法硏究 Vol.23 No.4

It should be known the fact that the good faith doctrine may play not only a role of behavior norm but also a test norm according to the fact relationship. In case of behavior norm, it applies to the performing party when they perform their duty in good faith. And also they should pay a duty of care from the good faith doctrine in performing their duties. In case that the plaintiff exercise their rights, they should observe the good faith doctrine. In that case they have to use the good faith doctrine as a test norm. Through analyzing of good faith cases and related cases, we have already made a set of some conceptual characteristics of good faith. For example, l)good faith character(that is composed of honesty and fairness). 2)non-expectation possibility, 3) social acceptance possibility, 4)justice or equity and etc. Violation of good faith doctrine has been categorized and systemized according to the type of the conceptual characteristics of good faith. By using of newly categorized violation type of the good faith doctrine, a new system of legal theory on the application rule of the good faith doctrine was made in this paper. (1) An application type of adopting the [faithfulness (honesty and fairness)] as a standard of judging whether the good faith doctrine was violated or not : this type of violation rule applies to the contract performing or exercising the rights. (2) The second type of adopting the [non-expectation possibility] : this type of violation rule applies to the changed circumstances which is different from that of the foriginal contract. (3) The third type of adopting the [social acceptance possibility] : this type of violation rule applies to the abuse of rights or exercising of reclaim for damages. (4) The fourth type of adopting the [justice or equity] : this type of violation rule applies to the interpretation of contracts or statutes. In this paper the legal theory on the violation of good faith doctrine is categorized and systemized in aspect of the conceptual substance of good faith doctrine.

영국 해상보험법상의 최대선의의무의 개혁에 관한 고찰

정대 동국대학교 비교법문화연구소 2019 比較法硏究 Vol.19 No.1

A contract of marine insurance is founded on the doctrine of utmost good faith in England. Under section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, a contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith. It is said that the doctrine of utmost good faith applies to all insurance contracts. Furthermore, the duty of utmost good faith is a broader and deeper concept than the duty of disclosure and representations under MIA. Under MIA, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party. The origin of duty of utmost good faith is based on Carter v. Boehm in 1766. In Carter v. Boehm, Lord Mansfield judged that the duty of utmost good faith was reciprocal between the insurer and the assured. In 2001, the House of Lords dealt with the Star Sea case closely related to the duty of utmost good faith, and judged as follows. First, the duty of utmost good faith is reciprocal and maintained after the conclusion of the insurance contract. Second, a fraudulent claim of the assured is a breach of the duty of utmost good faith, and therefore he can not recover the claim. Third, in litigation the duty of utmost good faith does not apply to the acts of the assured. After the Star Sea case, however, the contents of the duty of utmost good faith have been debated. Finally, the Insurance Act was amended in 2015. Through the Insurance Act of 2015, the duty of utmost good faith under MIA was greatly changed. 영국 해상보험법상 해상보험계약은 최대선의에 기초한 계약이고 만약 일방당사자가 최대선의를 준수하지 않으면, 타방 당사자는 보험계약을 취소할 수있다. 영국 해상보험법상 최대선의의무의 기원은 1766년 Carter v. Boeh m사건에 있다고 할 수 있다. Carter v. Boehm사건 판결은 근대 영국 보험법에 있어서 최대선의의무를 최초로 또한 가장 포괄적으로 설명한 판례였다고 할 수 있다. 즉 Carter v. Boehm사건에서의 Lord Mansfield의 판결은 근대 영국 보험법의 기초가 되었을 뿐만 아니라 그 후의 성문법화 및판례법에 큰 영향을 주었다고 평가할 수 있다. 이 최대선의의무의 문제가 다시 재확인된 대표적인 판결이 2001년의 Sta r Sea호 사건 판결이었다고 할 수 있다. Star Sea호 사건판결은 영국해상보험법 제17조의 최대선의의무와 관련되어 의미가 있는 판결이며, 특히 보험계약체결 후의 제17조의 최대선의의무의 적용에 대해 상세히 판시하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다고 평가할 수 있다. 첫째, 최대선의의무는 보험계약체결 후에도 존속되고 적용되는 보험계약자 상호간의 의무라는 점이다. 둘째, 최대선의의무는 구체적 사건에 따라 그 내용이 사항적으로 한정되는 성질의 것이며, 보험자가 보험계약을 변경하여 새로운 위험을 인수한 경우의피보험자의 고지의무, 사기적 보험금지급청구를 하지 않을 의무 등이 이에해당한다. 셋째, 사기보다 낮은 정도의 비난가능성이 있는 행위에 대해서는최대선의의무위반의 성립은 어렵다고 보아야 한다는 점이다. 넷째, 제17조는소송절차가 개시되었을 때 피보험자의 행위에는 그 적용이 부정된다고 하는점이다. 그런데 영국 해상보험법상의 최대선의의무의 내용을 둘러싼 논쟁은 여전히존재하였고, 특별히 보험자가 주로 보험계약자의 최대선의의무 위반을 주장하는 경향이 두드러졌다. 이와 관련하여 2015년 영국 보험법이 개정됨으로써 최대선의의무제도가 크게 변경되기에 이르렀다.

상법상 주식회사 이사의 신인의무 - 경영판단의 원칙의 적용을 중심으로 -

이준호 전남대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논총 Vol.35 No.1

From the mid-1980's, the discussion of corporate governance has been still developed critically. It may be believed that this developments have helped the nations of world to improve their national wealth and to their competitive power. Nevertheless, corporate scandals has repeatedly happened over the world. That is not why the study on corporate governance is inefficient or insufficient. The answer about these problems is that entrepreneurship is rotten and corrupt because of deregulation of directors and CEOs. For example, the business judgement rule and the exculpation provision protected the authority of directors and officers, but decreased the wealth of shareholders and interests of corporations. Therefore, we need to balance between the accountability and authority of directors and officers. This is the First purpose of this study. The duty of good faith in corporate law is composed of a general baseline conception and specific obligations that instantiate that conception. The duty of good faith plays a four important role in corporate law. First, the duty of good faith covers managerial conduct that is improper but falls outside the spheres of the duties of care and loyalty. Second, certain rules that limit the duties of care and loyalty should not and do not apply to conduct that lacks good faith. Third, the duty of good faith characteristically functions differently from the duties of care and loyalty. Fourth, the Duty of good faith provides the courts with a principled basis for articulating new specific fiduciary obligations in response to social changes. Moreover, the duties of care and loyalty characteristically function as platforms for liability rules, while the duty of good faith characteristically functions as a condition to the application of rules that do not in themselves impose liability. The first Purpose of this study is the analysis on the meaning and function of duty of good faith in corporate law. This analysis and study will be the implications for the Korean corporate law. And then, the other purpose of this study is the demonstration of the relationship of the duty of good faith and the business judgment rule. This attempt of the demonstrations is for the confirmations for the reflections of the fiduciary duty in corporate law and the business judgment rule. Part Ⅱ will explain the Disney case, the Stone case and Ryan case. This part discuss the argument about the independence of the duty of good faith. Theargument about the independence of the duty of good faith is whether the directors’ fiduciary duty is composed of duty of care, duty of loyalty and duty of good faith. Part Ⅲ will discuss the normative approach of the directors’ fiduciary duties. This part explain the view of the Professor Johnson, Judge Allen and Veasey. Part Ⅳ will explain the relation of the directors’ fiduciary duty and the business judgment rule. Especially, This part will analyse the case study of the business judgment rule in Korean supreme court. Part Ⅴ will recommend the revision of corporate law in Korea. By explaining the introduction of the duty of good faith, this part will demonstrate the harmony with directors’ fiduciary duties and corporate law in Korea. 1980년대 이후부터 진행되어 온 기업지배구조 논의는 현재에 있어서도 매우 중요한문제로 논의되고 있다. 현재에 있어서 기업지배구조의 논의는 기업의 경쟁력과 국부증진에 깊은 관련성을 가지면서 논의된다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 예전부터 계속적으로 발생되고 있는 기업불상사와 스캔들은 기업지배구조의 논의가 단순히 효율성과 기업성장에 대한 논의로 집중될 것이 아니라, 기업의 도덕성과 회사법의 규범성을 강조해야 한다는 점을 강조하게 함으로써 기업지배구조 논의는 새로운 국면을 맞이하게 되었다. 이사의 신인의무에 대한 재정립과 이와 관련을 가지는 성실의무의 논의는 바로 이러한배경으로 등장하게 된다. 특히 이사 및 경영진에 대한 의무의 논의는 미국의 회사법 판례를 중심으로 새롭게 전개되었다. 미국에서는 델라웨어주 법원에서 “이사의 성실의무”라는 개념을 언급함으로써, 이사와 경영진에 대한 논의에 새로운 생명을 불어넣게 되었다. “Disney사건”에서 재판부는이사의 성실의무에 관한 개념을 설시함으로써, 과거 기존의 이사와 경영진에 대한 규율체계에 급격한 변화를 주는 계기를 마련하게 되었다. 이사의 성실의무에 관한 내용은사실상 Disney판결 이전에 일부 몇몇 판례에서 “Good Faith”라는 개념정립을 시도하면서, 산발적으로 등장하였다. 그러나 Disney판결 이전의 판례는 성실의무의 본질적인 측면이나 독립성에 관하여 확고한 논지를 제시하지 않았으며, 다만 그 기능과 존재의 의미 정도만을 제시하는 수준에서 머물렀다. 그러나 Disney판결은 이전의 판례와는 다르게, 신인의무의 내용 중에서 독자적인 의미를 갖는다는 의미의 독립성을 천명하였으며, 특히 명시적인 문구를 통하여 성실의무의 구체적인 내용을 제시하였다는데 있어서 높이 평가될 수 있다. 한편, Disney 판결과 이후에 등장한 Stone 판결 및 Ryan 판결은 이사의 행위에 대한 규범적 논의에 있어서 중요한 의미를 가진다고 할 수 있다. 미국에있어서 신인의무의 논의와 성실의무의 검토는 우리나라에 있어서 도입여부가 논의되고있는 경영판단의 원칙 적용과 관련성을 가지면서 새로운 시사점을 제공할 수 있다. 본고는 신인의무의 정립을 필수적 전제로 요청하는 경영판단의 원칙에 주목하여, 우리나라 회사법에서 이사의 신인의무 도입과 정립에 대하여 고찰하고자 한다. 미국에서 는 효율성과 경제적 성과만을 중시한 회사법 태도에서 전환하여, 이사・경영진의 규범성을 강조하기 위한 시도가 델라웨어주 판례를 통하여 나타나고 있다. 따라서 우선적으로 신인의무에 관한 미국의 판례 추이를 살피기 위하여, 2000년대 이후 등장한 주요 판례를 검토한다. 다음으로 미국에서 진행된 신인의무의 새로운 논의를 소개한 이후, 우리나라 경영판단의 원칙이 도입된 추이를 검토하여 신인의무의 정립과 이에 수반한 성실의무의 도입필요성을 설명한다. 끝으로 실제로 상법개정이 이루어진다면, 이사의 신인의무가 우리나라 상법에 어떠한 방식으로 녹아들어갈 것인지에 관하여 제언한다.