조합채무에 대한 조합원의 책임

오소정(Oh, So Jeong),이진기(Lee, Jin Ki) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2014 성균관법학 Vol.26 No.2

The above external effects between creditors of the partnership and partnership members are summarized as below: 1. Partnership members' property relationship is a joint ownership, and it can be found to consist a sort of a system of vicious circle that partnership relationship should again be reflected to understand contents of joint ownership. As a result, the rules about joint ownership of real rights with receivables of the civil law cannot help being applied to the partnership property relationship indivisibly. Therefore, if several individuals jointly purchase real estate and purchasers aim at running joint businesses by mutual investment and distribute profits, the real estate belongs to the same enterprise. Meaning, it will be regarded as the joint ownership of the partnership members. 2. As 712 and 713 of the civil law cause a lot of legal difficulties on the properties of the dept of the partnership by assuming an ambiguous attitude toward partnership members' responsibilities, it will be reasonable that each partnership member admits joint responsibility in the responsibility as their individual property, according to the principle of the joint ownership. It is reasonable to view the responsibility for the joint ownership as the time limit responsibility, since the individual partnership members only have the abstract share of the joint ownership shares until the partnership is dissolved. The partnership is an organization that is combined for a joint enterprise. Actually, because it is mostly applicable to the merchants, there will be many cases that joint responsibility about the individual responsibility of each partnership member is admitted, according to Article 57, Clause 1 of the Commercial Law. 3. Despite that partnership contract is the basic legal system, which is the basis of Article 712 of the Corporation Law, that defines individual members' responsibility according to compensation for loss, will be unfair as it results in overprotection of the partnership members when compared to the rules of the Commercial Law on the responsibilities of unlimited partners in unlimited partnerships and general partners in limited partnerships. Therefore, Article 712 needs to be reconsidered basically in the theory of legislation and should have been reconsidered before. Eventually, if a person of partnership members is insolvent regardless of any case, other partnership members have liability for performance about this. The problem that Article 712 is applied cannot help leading to the problem to interpret Article 713. 4. The provisions of Article 712 and 713 should be regarded as defining internal share rates of debt of the partnership among partnership members. Furthermore, in the external relationship, which is the relationship between creditors and partners, they consider that the responsibilities of partnership members according to the Civil Law is divided liability, while the responsibility of employees in unlimited partnerships and limited partnerships according to the Commercial Law consists of joint responsibility of invisible debt. So there is a question about what the basis is, whether the partnership members should be protected more than the creditors. The rules about the legal relationship about partnership is the general rule when compared to the legal relationship defined by the Commercial Law. Therefore, it cannot be thought that the Commercial Law strengthened the responsibility. The division into partnership according to the Commercial Law and the Civil Law is ambiguous. As long as there is no special basis that should protect partnership members more than necessary, debt of partnership members should be regarded as joint debt in the receivables, and dept relationship between creditors and partnership members should be regarded as the external relationship. The creditors can charge each partnership member except the debtors without the capacity to affect performance for the total amount

동업기업 과세제도의개선에 관한 연구 - 조세전문가의 인식을 중심으로 -

이동헌,윤태화 한국회계정보학회 2010 회계정보연구 Vol.28 No.4

Current partnership taxation system is characterized by streamlined taxation procedures with minimized possibility of legal or institutional abuse and tax avoidance, as Korea remains at early phase of introducing partnership taxation. Partnership taxation system has failed to reasonably reflect any financial reality of each company participating in partnership and for such reasons its effect is being questioned comparing to the partnership taxation of overseas. This paper intends to explore improvement strategies to realize the adoption of a practical and reasonable partnership taxation system taking into account the current corporate state of affairs in South Korea. A survey research targeting groups of taxation experts was conducted. Below are the conclusions from the empirical analysis of the improvement strategy with the most significant implications for the problems with the current partnership taxation:Firstly, regarding investment in-kind into a partnership in its foundation stage, the assets invested into that partnership have changed only in terms of the form of ownership, rather than any material change. Therefore, to economically boost such partnership, a tax deferral should be granted. For labor investment into a partnership, the equity interests and earnings gained from labor investment need be distinguished from one another during the taxation procedures since they produce different economic effects. To distinguish the equity interests from the earnings, the definitions of these two terms, criteria for separating them, and methods of evaluating them should be clarified. As the liabilities of a partnership affect the outside basis of the partners, and since continuous adjustments are required to avoid the double taxation or double tax deduction of the value per share of the partnership, rules for the distribution of such liabilities should be created. And it was found that many respondents thought that taxation on liquidation income offered in conversion of undertakings into a partnership amounts to taxation on unrealized capital gains, so as a means to impose tax upon realized capital gains, it would be necessary to impose tax on partnership's disposition of its own property, not on the selection of partnership taxation system. Secondly, as for the ratio of income allocation during the operation stage of a partnership, considering the purpose of introducing partnership taxation, namely, through a liberal combination of knowledge, technology, and capital, a system of taxation that reflects the reality of partnerships running various businesses ought to be created, if capital and labor are included in invested assets, profit and loss allocation ratios should be determined separately. With the separate profit and loss allocation ratios, which are defined by listing up examples of tax evasion, an improved version of partnership taxation should be flexible enough to apply an uniform income allocation ratio only to those cases where tax evasion appears obviousfor example, tax burden has been lowered in the year of income allocation or an income allocation ratio under the agreement does not accord with the current economic situation. As well, partnerships, which have agreed not to avoid taxation, should be allowed to carry forward tax losses under the condition that, like the partnership taxation system effective in the U.S., any loss in excess of the value per share is limited to that value per share, in spite of which the partnership is still permitted to carry forward tax losses infinitely, regardless of extinctive prescription. When the earnings of a passive partner are classified as dividend income, any income that the passive partner is entitled to will be considered divided income, resulting in the failure of the partnership to receive loss deductions. Unlike stocks, the equity of a partner has very low liquidity and is subjected to taxation at the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, the purpose of partners... 현행 동업기업 과세제도는 동업기업 과세제도의 도입초기인 점을 감안하여 제도의 남용 가능성 및 조세회피를 최소화 하면서 제도를 단순화한 측면이 있으며 다른 세법 규정과의 조화를 이루도록 규정되어서, 동업기업에 참여하는 개별기업의 경제적 현상인 실상을 반영하지 못하고 있어, 외국의 동업기업 과세제도에 비해 그 효과가 의문시되고 있다. 본 연구는 동업기업 과세제도가 도입되어 시행된 이후에 동업기업 과세제도의 정책효과에 대한 개선방안을 연구하기 위하여 조세전문가의 인식수준에 대한 실증분석을 실시하였다. 연구 결과 주요 개선방향은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 동업기업 과세제도가 동업기업적용대상 기업들이 만족하는 수준으로 정착되기 위한 제도적 장치로서 기존의 소득세법상의 동업기업 과세제도 등 관련된 세법규정과 함께 동업기업 과세제도가 경제적 실질에 일치하는 과세제도로 법령을 정비할 필요가 있으며, 법령을 단순화 하여 규정 된 부분은 납세자의 이해가능성과 예측가능성을 보장하기 위하여 구체적이고 상세한 내용을 담은 법령규정이 되도록 할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 동업기업 과세제도의 문제점 및 개선방안의 인식에 있어서 전반적으로 국세공무원과 기업의 경리책임자 및 세무사ㆍ공인회계사간에 차이를 보이는 것은 동업기업 과세제도의 근본적인 접근 방법에 있어서의 시각의 차이를 나타내는 것으로서 납세자들의 조세회피를 방지하기 위한 규정을 두면서도 납세자들의 경제적 실질을 반영한 과세제도가 이루어져 납세자의 기본적인 권리의 침해가 되지 않도록 하는 제도적인 장치가 필요하다. 셋째, 새롭게 도입되어 시행되는 동업기업 과세제도에 대하여 세무행정에 대한 경험과 이해도가 높고 납세자의 세무적 인식과 행동에 매우 큰 영향을 미치며 과세당국과 납세자간에 교량적 역할을 하는 세무사ㆍ공인회계사가 동업기업 과세제도에 대해 부정적인 인식을 가지는 것은 동업기업 과세제도의 조기정착에 큰 걸림돌이 되는 것이며, 동업기업 과세제도의 법령규정에 많은 문제점을 내포하고 있는 것이므로 경제적 실질을 반영한 과세제도가 되도록 법령을 정비 할 필요가 있다.

민법상 합유에 관한 법적 고찰 - 합유 규정에 관한 민법 개정안을 중심으로 -

최민수 한국토지법학회 2021 土地法學 Vol.37 No.1

Our civil act disciplines Joint Ownership of three types: Co-ownership originated in Roman law, Partnership-ownership derived from Germanic law, and Collective Ownership derived from Germanic communities. Partnership -ownership is a form of joint ownership in which several people own things in a joint Partnership. This Partnership-ownership is distinguished from the division in that the individuality of the members is more evident than the group unity. It is also distinct from owned Partnership-ownership in that it is a combination established for common purposes. In the meantime, problems have been pointed out that are difficult to solve with interpretation theory regarding the regulations on Partnership -ownership of civil act. The legislators of our civil act have regular regulations on the side of real rights without considering the provisions of Partnership-ownership in detail and regulations on Partnership-ownership on the side of claim causing conflicts between the two regulations. In order to solve the above problems, the 2013 Civil Code Amendment Committee sought to regulate the real right and claim relations without contradiction or conflict. In order that secure the normative power of civil law regulations, a civil law amendment on Partnership-ownership and a contract of partnership was prepared and the following opinions are summarized: First, the second subcommittee of the Civil Code Amendment Committee in 2013 sought to preserve the provisions of Article 271 on the Partnership-ownership of thing and clarify the definition. However, it is hard to find a legislative example in which a party recognizes Partnership-ownership only by its agreement without presupposing a combination of people. The Commission's proposals are not valid because recognition of Partnership-ownership under the arrangement of the parties could harm the interests of the owners' creditors. Second, the subcommittee removed the provisions of Article 271(2) that “With regard to partnership-ownership, the following three Articles shall apply in addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph or contracts.” and tried to compulsory provisions. However, the provisions of Articles 272–274 should be regarded as having the nature of the compulsory provisions rather than the conventional view of interpreting it as non-mandatory provision. In this respect, Article 271(2) should be deleted for clarity. Third, amendment Article 272, proposed that Article 272 should add, in line with Administration of Jointly Owned under Article 265, “The administration of the article jointly owned shall be determined by a majority in shares of the co-owners.” However, it is not appropriate to do so by a majority and it is desirable to ensure that administration are agreed upon by all of the joint parties. Fourth, it is discussed whether the type of ownership of partnership property can be limited to the sum of Partnership-ownership. However, the amendments of Amendment Committee permit sole ownership in addition to Co-ownership and Partnership-ownership. These arrangements are not valid because they have the problem of failing to follow through on the notice principle and not being able to protect third parties who are creditors of Partnership. Finally, the amendment to the Civil Code Amendment Committee in 2013 to resolve the conflict between Articles 272 and 706 (2) of the Civil Code is considered a reasonable way to resolve the conflict between Articles 272 and 706(2) of the Civil Code. 여러 사람이 하나의 물건을 소유하는 공동소유에 관하여 우리 민법은 로마법에서 기원하는 공유, 게르만법에서 유래하는 합유, 게르만 공동체에서 유래하는 총유라는 세 가지 유형을 규율한다. 합유는 수인이 합수적 조합으로 물건을 소유하는 공동소유형태로서 이러한 합수적 조합은 단체적 단일성보다는 구성원의 개성이 뚜렷하게 나타난다는 점에서 사단과는 구별되며 공동의 목적 하에 성립된 결합체인 점에서 지분적 조합과도 구별된다. 이러한 민법상 합유규정에 관하여는 그 동안 해석론으로 해결하기 어려운 문제점들이 지적되어 왔다. 우리 민법의 입법자는 조합에 관한 규정을 자세히 고려하지 않은 채 물권편에서 통칙적인 규정을 두고 채권편에서 조합재산에 관한 규정을 두고 있어서 양 규정들이 서로 충돌하는 등 해석상의 논란이 되고 있다. 이상의 여러 가지 문제점들을 해결하기 위하여 2013년도 민법개정위원회는 모순 없는 물권과 채권관계를 규율하고 이로써 민법규정의 규범력을 확보하기 위해 합유 및 조합계약에 관한 민법 개정안을 마련하였는데 이에 관한 사견을 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 2013년 민법개정위원회 제2분과위원회는 물건의 합유에 관한 제271조의 규정을 그대로 존치시키고 합유의 정의를 분명히 하고자 하였다. 그러나 입법적으로 조합과 같은 인적 결합을 전제로 하지 않고 당사자의 약정만으로 합유를 인정하는 입법례는 찾기 어렵고 당사자의 약정에 의한 합유를 인정할 실익을 찾기 어려우며 이를 인정하면 소유자의 채권자 이익을 해할 우려가 있으므로 이러한 분과위안의 제안은 재고의 여지가 있다. 둘째, 분과위원회는 현행 제271조 제2항인 합유에 관하여는 전항의 규정 또는 계약에 의하는 외에 다음 3조의 규정에 의한다는 규정을 삭제하여 합유규정을 강행규정으로 하고자 하였다. 그러나 제272조 내지 제274조의 규정을 임의규정으로 해석하는 통설의 견해보다는 강행규정의 성질을 지니는 것으로 보아야 하며, 이러한 측면에서 제271조 제2항은 명확성을 위하여 삭제하는 것이 바람직하다. 셋째, 개정시안 제272조는, 제265조의 공유물의 관리에 상응하여 제272조에 “합유물의 관리에 관한 사항을 합유자의 과반수로 결정하도록 한다.”는 내용을 추가할 것을 제안하였다. 그러나 합유에서 보존행위 이외의 행위는 원칙적으로 합수적으로 하는 것이 적절하므로 관리행위를 과반수로 하는 것은 적절하지 않으며 관리행위도 합유자의 전원의 동의를 얻도록 하는 것이 바람직하다. 넷째, 조합재산의 소유형태가 물권편의 합유로만 국한될 수 있는지 문제되는데, 2013년 민법개정위원회 개정안은 “다른 약정이 없으면 조합원의 출자 그 밖의 조합재산은 조합원의 합유로 한다.”고 하였다. 그러나 개정위원회의 개정안은 합유와 공유 이외에 단독소유까지도 허용하는 것이고, 이러한 약정은 공시의 원칙을 관철시키지 못해 조합의 채권자인 제3자를 보호할 수 없다는 문제가 있으므로 재고의 여지가 있다고 본다. 마지막으로 민법 제272조와 제706조 제2항의 충돌문제를 해결하기 위한 2013년도 민법개정위원회 개정안은 그 동안 학계로부터 많은 비판을 받아 온 민법 제272조와 제706조 제2항의 충돌문제를 해결할 수 있는 합리적인 방안이라 여겨진다.

개정상법상의 합자조합에 대한 소고

권기범 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2011 서울법학 Vol.19 No.1

This article briefly studies the Limited Partnership(LP) recently introduced in the Korean Commercial Code(§86-2 ∼ §86-9). On March 2011, the National Assembly adopted the KCC Revision Bill submitted by the Ministry of Justice on May 7. 2008. The Revision Bill, among others, includes two new types of business organization : Limited Partnership(LP) and Limited Liability Company(LLC). According to the Revision Bill, LP is framed and structured in between the General Partnership in the Korean Civil Code and the Limited Partnership Company(Kommanditgesellschaft in the German Commercial Code) in the Korean Commercial Code. A LP may come into existence with the written partnership agreement between one(or more) management partner(general partner) and one(or more) limited partner. A LP is nevertheless to be recognized as a changed form of General Partnership. In this context, relevant provisions in the Korean Civil Code apply mutatis mutandis to the LP, otherwise provided in the Korean Commercial Code or partnership agreement. Despite of all efforts, legislators seem to fail to meet the needs of our business societies. Here I am not reluctant to point out several legislative defects. Firstly, the business purposes of LP are restricted to profit ones : therefore LP is not available for doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. because their businesses are traditionally treated as non-commercial. It is undoubtedly undesirable. Secondly, while transfer of the management partner's membership interests is allowed with the other management partners' unanimous consents, that of the limited partner's membership interests depends on the partnership agreement, which may give rise to unnecessary interpretational issues. Still worse, §86-7 (3) provides rather ambiguously of the legal effects of transfer of the limited partner's membership interests. §86-7 (3) does not make any sense when only a part of membership interests is transferred. Thirdly, while the management partner is liable only when LP is insolvent or its assets do not satisfy the creditors(the management partner's liability is secondary), the limited partner cannot refer to such requirements(the limited partner's liability is unconditionally primary). This is unequitable. Fourthly, the legislator shapes LP not as a legal entity but as an aggregate of partners, which will bring about much difficulty in both internal partnership relations and external third party transactions. Such a legislative choice is old - fashioned. It is strongly argued in this article that the LP should be interpreted to be a legal entity in spite of lack of the positive provisions. This article briefly studies the Limited Partnership(LP) recently introduced in the Korean Commercial Code(§86-2 ∼ §86-9). On March 2011, the National Assembly adopted the KCC Revision Bill submitted by the Ministry of Justice on May 7. 2008. The Revision Bill, among others, includes two new types of business organization : Limited Partnership(LP) and Limited Liability Company(LLC). According to the Revision Bill, LP is framed and structured in between the General Partnership in the Korean Civil Code and the Limited Partnership Company(Kommanditgesellschaft in the German Commercial Code) in the Korean Commercial Code. A LP may come into existence with the written partnership agreement between one(or more) management partner(general partner) and one(or more) limited partner. A LP is nevertheless to be recognized as a changed form of General Partnership. In this context, relevant provisions in the Korean Civil Code apply mutatis mutandis to the LP, otherwise provided in the Korean Commercial Code or partnership agreement. Despite of all efforts, legislators seem to fail to meet the needs of our business societies. Here I am not reluctant to point out several legislative defects. Firstly, the business purposes of LP are restricted to profit ones : therefore LP is not available for doctors, lawyers, accountants etc. because their businesses are traditionally treated as non-commercial. It is undoubtedly undesirable. Secondly, while transfer of the management partner's membership interests is allowed with the other management partners' unanimous consents, that of the limited partner's membership interests depends on the partnership agreement, which may give rise to unnecessary interpretational issues. Still worse, §86-7 (3) provides rather ambiguously of the legal effects of transfer of the limited partner's membership interests. §86-7 (3) does not make any sense when only a part of membership interests is transferred. Thirdly, while the management partner is liable only when LP is insolvent or its assets do not satisfy the creditors(the management partner's liability is secondary), the limited partner cannot refer to such requirements(the limited partner's liability is unconditionally primary). This is unequitable. Fourthly, the legislator shapes LP not as a legal entity but as an aggregate of partners, which will bring about much difficulty in both internal partnership relations and external third party transactions. Such a legislative choice is old - fashioned. It is strongly argued in this article that the LP should be interpreted to be a legal entity in spite of lack of the positive provisions.

논문 : 민국시기(民國時期) 합과개량안(合화改良案)을 둘러싼 논쟁(論爭)

정지호 ( Ji Ho Jeong ) 경희대학교 인문학연구원 2011 인문학연구 Vol.0 No.20

본 연구는 민국시기 합과의 연대책임 문제를 해결하기 위해 合화개량안으로서 제안된 ``분담무한공사``안과 ``상업등기제도``안의 내용 및 이를 둘러싼 제반 논쟁을 분석하고 이것이 지니는 역사적 의의를 고찰해본 것이다. 潘序倫은 합과 기업이 합과인 사이의 계약 관계에 불과하고 법인 자격이 없어 법률상 관할 기관에 등기할 필요가 없기 때문에 합과의 내부 사정을 외부에서 알도리가 없으며 이로 인해 채권자의 이익을 보호할 방도가 없다. 나아가 합과 기업의 관행인 按股分擔責任과 근대 법률의 연대책임과의 충돌로 인해 상계에 많은 문제점을 야기하고 있다고 지적한 후 이를 해결하기 위한 방안으로 합과의 등기, 합과 재산의 공개, 합과인의 성명, 대외 소송 주체 등의 규정을 명확히 할 필요가 있는데, 이러한 문제는 ``분담무한공사``(고분무한공사)를 통해 해결할 수 있다고 주장하였다. 즉 종래 합과의 채무 규정은 민법상의 연대 책임 규정을 준수하는 대신 새롭게 공사조례에 ``분담무한공사``조항을 새롭게 증설해 분담무한책임을 지도록 한다는 것이다. 潘序倫의 ``분담무한공사``안은 합과 관행의 문제점을 근대적 회사법 내에서 절충적으로 해결하고자 한 시도라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 상인단체의 입장에서 볼 때,개인적 신용을 중시하는 전통적 상업습관이 무시되고 게다가 근대적 경제관념을 강요당했다는 관점에서, 나아가 합과를 회사 기업으로 전환함으로 인해 오랜 전통의 합과 자체가 역사 속으로 사라질 지도 모른다는 우려 속에서 근본적인 저항감이 있었던 것을 아닐까. 여기에는 합과 기업의 불투명 이라는 문제가 타자에 의해제기되었다고 하는 것에 대한 반발도 크게 상인단체의 맹렬한 반대에 크게 작용하였을 것이라고 생각한다. 이러한 점에서 ``상업등기제도``안은 합과 기업의 관행을 그대로 인정한다는 측면에서 ``분담무한공사``안보다는 긍정적인 평가를 받게 되었지만, 등기 수속을 상인단체를 통해 하는가 아니면 상인이 개별적으로 하는가를 둘러싼, 이른바 중국 상계를 자신의 관리 하에 두려고 하는 국가권력과 상인단체와의 주도권 싸움과 함께 합과의 연대책임을 지지하는 국민정부와의 갈등으로 인해 결국 법률로서 채택되지 못한 채 역사 속으로 사라지게 되었던 것이다. This study analyzes the contents of "Share Unlimited company"分擔 無限公司proposal and "Commercial registration" proposal sugested as the improvement for solution of joint responsibility problem in partnership合화and the various disputes around them, and to consider the historical meaning thereof. Pan xulun潘序倫is merely the contractual relation between partners of partnership, and registration thereof with governing authority is not enforced. As partnership lacks a legal person status, it is impossible for outsiders to find out internal situation of the partnership. And therefore there is no way to protect partnership creditors` interest. Pan xulun further presents that the practice of .Angu fendan zeren 按股分擔責任(partners to be responsible in pro rata to ratio of stockholding) is provoking many problems by conflicting with joint responsibility of modern law. As the solution to this problem, it was necessary to clearly stipulate the regulations on registration of partnership, disclosure of partnership properties, name of partners, the entity to be the principal of litigation with outsider. It is argued that this problem could be solved by Share Unlimited Company. In other words, rather than honoring joint responsibility for partnership liabilities pursuant to Civil Code, Share Unlimited Company provisions could be inserted in Company Law公司條例to introduce enforcement of Share Unlimitde responsibility分擔無限責任to partners. Share Unlimitde responsibility proposal by Pan xulun is a compromised solution approach to solve the problems in partnership practice within modern company law. However, from merchant group`s viewpoint, fundamental resistance was raised as traditional custom of emphasizing personal credit was overruled, modern economic concept was coerced, and there were further concern that old traditional partnership itself might disappear in history as partnership is converted to company. Here, it was assumed that the partnership problem of lacking transparency was raised by other party was a major factor that triggered fierce opposition from merchant societies. In this regard, "Commercial registration"商業登記制度proposal received more positive responses in that the proposal acknowledged the partnership practices intactly, However, the proposal also could not be enacted and disappeared into the history, due to conflict with Republical government supporting joint responsibility of partnership, together with hegemony struggle between merchant groups and government authority that tried to keep business world under government management. as the struggle was actualized in the issue of whether registration process shall be managed through merchants` body or independently.

The Impact of Child Care Center-Head Start Agency Partnership Characteristics on Parents’ Satisfaction with Child Care and Early Education

김정은 한국보건사회연구원 2012 保健社會硏究 Vol.32 No.4

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the public-private partnership influences the quality of programming at client level by applying the partnership example in early childhood development as seen in the child care center’s partnership with Head Start agency. Specific aim is to examine what characteristics of the Head Start partnership influence parent satisfaction with child care and early education. Key theories in an effort to understand the public-private partnerships in social services delivery have two main viewpoints: 1)economic perspectives to see the partnership as contracting and economic efficiency-based relationships, and 2)organizational and institutional perspective to explain the dynamic collaborative processes of the partnership. The data was drawn from Partnership Impact Research Project, 2001-2004, quantitative data gathered from child care directors, teachers, and parents in Ohio, U.S.A. This data was cleaned as cross-sectional basis and finalized 745 parents of 50 partnering child care centers. The research question was examined through the use of hierarchical linear modeling. This study revealed that partnership maturity is a significant predictor of higher parent satisfaction. The findings of this study support that higher parent satisfaction is more likely to depend on how the partnership has been characterized (process-driven partnership), rather than whether the centers have a partnership itself (financial resource dependent partnership). This study contributes new empirical knowledge throughout more direct evaluation of partnership factors at the organizational level as well as quality of programs at the client level. These empirical findings imply that the partnership between the child care centers and Head Start agencies need to further develop organizational strategies to support client-focused partnerships that effectively promote quality programs.

미국 통일파트너십법(Uniform Partnership Act)상 파트너십과 그 시사점

한승수(Seungsoo Han) 한국비교사법학회 2023 비교사법 Vol.30 No.2

In this paper, the basic composition of the US partnership was examined based on the contents of the Uniform Partnership Act(UPA) and its revised version(Revised Uniform Partnership Act). The partnership is the only organization with a profit-making purpose that does not require any formalities. Even if there is no contract, its formation can be recognized, and usually each individual partner has equal authority and freedom to deviate from the partnership. Both before and after the revision of the UPA have elements based on aggregate view and entity view, for example, even before the revision specifying the entity view, real estate could already be acquired or disposed of in the name of the partnership. In the revised version, the entity view was put forward more fully. This shows that there is a realistic need to recognize the existence of the partnership, and that explicit regulations are required to realize such a need. These basic attitudes and changes in the partnership provide some implications for the understanding of associations under our civil law. First of all, unlike the partnership in the United States, our association does not require profitability, so it covers more comprehensive area, and does not explicitly allow the acquisition of real estate in its name. In addition, in the case of partnership, while it is the only organization that does not require registration, the association divide the area with a highly utilized organization called an unincorporated juridical organization. Therefore, under the current law, there is insufficient logical basis for recognizing the association as a stronger organization or an organization at a similar level than the unincorporated juridical organization. In our association, which uses the contract as the basis for its formation, there is not much need for a logical basis and practical need to strongly recognize the nature of the entity in areas beyond explicit regulations. Of course, through the revision of the law it can be treated as a real entity, and it is considerable. In this regard, it is also worth noting the revision of Germany. However, there must be enough concerns about the nature and status of association on the way to revision. In the relationship between our association and other entities, there are obvious differences from the U.S. partnership or German ‘Gesellschaft’. 이 글에서는 미국 통일파트너십법(Uniform Partnership Act: UPA)와 그 개정 버전(Revised Uniform Partnership Act)의 내용을 바탕으로 미국 파트너십의 기본구성을 살펴보았다. 미국의 파트너십은 영리 목적을 가진, 어떠한 정형성도 요구되지 않는 유일한 단체이다. 계약이 없더라도 그 결성이 인정될 수 있지만, 통상적으로 개별 파트너 각자가 동등한 권한을 가지고 있고, 파트너십으로부터 벗어나는 자유도 가지고 있다. UPA의 개정 전후 모두 집합설과 단체설에 기반한 요소들을 모두 가지고 있는데, 예컨대, 단체설을 기초로 한 개정 이전에도 이미 파트너십 명의로 부동산을 취득하거나 처분할 수 있었다. 개정 버전에서는 단체설을 보다 전면적으로 내세웠다. 이는 파트너십의 실체를 인정할 현실적인 필요성이 있다는 점 및 그러한 필요성을 현실화하는 데에는 명문의 규정이 요구된다는 점을 보여준다. 이러한 미국 파트너십의 기본태도와 변화는 우리 민법상 조합의 이해에 몇 가지 시사점을 제공해준다. 먼저 미국의 파트너십에서와 달리 우리 조합은 영리성을 요건으로 하지 않아 보다 포괄적인 영역을 상정하고 있고, 그 명의의 부동산 취득을 명시적으로 상정하지 않고 있다. 또한 파트너십의 경우 등기나 등록을 요구하지 않는 유일한 단체인 반면, 조합은 비법인사단이라는 활용도 높은 단체와 그 영역을 양분하고 있다. 따라서 현행법상으로는 조합을 비법인사단보다 강한 단체, 혹은 그와 유사한 수준의 단체로서 인정할 논리적 근거는 충분하지 아니하다. 계약을 그 결성의 기반으로 삼고 있는 우리 조합에 있어서는 명문의 규정을 넘어서는 영역에서 단체로서의 성격을 강하게 인정할 논리적 근거, 현실적 필요가 크지 않다. 물론 법개정을 통하여 조합을 실체로서 취급할 수 있고, 그러한 필요도 상당하다. 이와 관련하여 미국의 파트너십 외에 독일의 법개정 상황도 참고할 만하다. 그러나 그러한 입법에 있어서도 여전히 조합의 본질과 지위에 관한 충분한 고민이 선행되어야 한다. 우리의 조합과 다른 단체들 사이의 관계는 미국의 파트너십이나 독일의 조합과는 명백한 차이가 있기 때문이다.

미국의 파트너쉽 제도

김태선(Kim Tae Sun) 한국재산법학회 2016 재산법연구 Vol.33 No.2

역사적으로 영미의 파트너쉽은 그 구성원인 파트너들의 단순한 집합일 뿐이라고 인식되었으며, 그 자체가 독립한 실체로 취급되지 않았다. 이러한 집합설에 입각한 관점은 1914년 통일파트너쉽법 (the Uniform Partnership Act 1914) 및 1997년 개정통일파트너쉽법(the Revised Uniform Partnership Act 1997)에 따른 법제도의 변천으로 점차 퇴색하였다. 1997년 개정통일파트너쉽법은 명시적으로 ‘파트너쉽은 파트너와는 독립된 실체이다’라고 규정함으로써 실체설을 취하였다고 평가받는다. 파트너쉽은 법인격 없는 단체이지만 독립한 실체로서 권리능력과 소송상 당사자능력을 가지며, 파트너쉽의 재산은 파트너 개인의 재산과는 구별되는 파트너쉽 고유의 재산으로 파트너쉽의 명의로 취득하고 이전할 수 있다. 1997년 개정통일파트너쉽법은 파트너들이 파트너쉽의 채무에 대해 연대하여(jointly and severally) 책임을 진다는 전통적인 법리를 유지하고 있다. 그러나 파트너들로 하여금 등록을 통해 유한책임 파트너쉽(limited liability partnership)으로의 전환을 선택할 수 있도록 하고 있으며, 합병제도를 두어 파트너쉽 구조를 유연하게 변경할 수 있도록 한다. 나아가 파트너쉽의 업무집행대리권에 관한 임의 등록제도를 마련하여 대리권 존부의 분쟁에 관한 입법적 해결을 시도하고 있다. 이러한 미국의 통일 파트너쉽 법제의 변화는 우리 민법상 조합 법리에 시사점을 준다. 민법상 조합에서도 권리능력, 소송상 당사자능력을 인정하는 것, 등기제도를 활용하여 분쟁을 예방하고 거래비용을 줄이는 방안, 합병과 유한조합과의 상호전환 등 조합의 확장과 변경을 유연하게 할 수 있도록 하는 제도의 도입 등을 충분히 고려해볼 수 있다. This article explores the foundational unincorporated business entity statute in the U.S., the Uniform Partnership Act (1997). A partnership in common law has historically been considered to be a mere aggregate of its individual members and is not recognized as a separate legal entity. This view of the partnership has become eroded somewhat over the years through changes made by the Uniform Partnership Act (1914) and more recently, by Uniform Partnership Act (1997). The UPA (1997) declares: “A Partnership is an entity district from its partners.” A number of key sections of the UPA (1997) clearly do refect the entity approach rather than aggregate approach. A partnership is not a legal person. Nevertheless, under the UPA (1997) it is clear that a partnership is a legal entity and a juridical person. A partnership can own and convey property, and sue or be sued in the name of the partnership. The UPA (1997) continues the traditional rule that general partners are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the partnership, but authorized a general partnership to elect to become a limited liability partnership(LLP) by filing a registration statement in the public office. The UPA (1997) contains provisions authorizing general partnerships to merge, or convert into any other type of entity or authorizing other types of entities to merge. Another changes introduced by the UPA (1997) is provision for the public filing of statements containing basic information about a partnership, such as the agency authorities of its partners. These changes to partnership law in U.S. may have implications for the study on general partnership theory in Korea.

組合課稅에 관한 判例硏究 : 출자, 지분양도 및 노무제공과 관련하여

尹柄哲 한국세법연구회 2002 조세법연구 Vol.8 No.1

이 논문은 조합(partnership)에 대한 출자(in-kind contribution), 조합지분의 양도(transfer of partnership interest), 조합에 대한 노무(supply of service to the partnership) 제공에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로 하여, 조합으로부터 나오는 소득에 대한 과세문제를 분석 정리한 것이다. 조합과세에 대한 대법원의 입장을 요약해 보면, 대법원은 조합에 대한 재산출자를 기본적으로 양도로 보고 있으며, 자기 지분에 해당하는 재산도 양도된 것으로 보고 있다. 조합지분의 양도로 인한 이익을 어떻게 소득구분(income classification)할 것인가 하는 점에 관하여는 대법원 판례는 이를 양도소득(capital gain)과 사업소득(business income)으로 과세하는 판례로 나누어져 있다. 이점에 관하여는 양도소득으로 과세하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 그리고 구체적인 사안에 따라 조합의 사업소득으로서 아직 과세되지 아니한 부분이나 잔여재산의 분배(distribution of liquidation proceeds)로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 각 개별 사안에 따라 사업소득이나 기타 증여세 과세문제가 될 수 있다고 본다. 즉 대가 (amount received)와 취득가액(basis)의 차액에 관하여 바로 소득구분을 따지기보다는, 과세소득의 발생경위에 관한 구체적 사실관계를 더 따져서 그 소득금액이 기발생한 사업소득이나 청산으로 인한 잔여재산 분배로서 사업소득에 해당할 여지가 없는지를 심리해 보아야 한다고 생각한다. 한편, 형행 세법 규정상으로는 지분양도(transfer of partnership interest)와 관련하여 하나의 재산에 관하여 발생하는 가치의 증가(미실현이익 : unrealized appreciation)에 대하여 이중과세가 발생할 가능성이 있는바, 이를 조정하는 규정이 없는 현 상황에서는 필요경비 공제(deduction of expenses) 내지 취득가액 공제(deduction of basis) 규정의 해석에 의해서라도 양도차익(capital gain) 산정에 있어서 이중과세를 피하여야 할 것이다. 그리고 조합에 대한 노무 제공은 비독립적 종속적 노무의 제공이라고 인정되는 경우에는 이를 근로소득으로 불 수 있다고 하였고 업무집행 조합원(managing partner)으로서의 정액급여인 경우에는, 제 3자가 그러한 노무를 제공하였을 때에도 동일한 조건하에 급여를 지급하였으리라고 인정되는 경우에는 그 급여를 근로소득(salary)으로 볼 수 있다고 하겠다. This article analyzes tax issues of Supreme court precedents in relation to the in-kind contribution to the partnership, transfer of partnership interest, supply of service to the partnership, and the income derived from the partnership. To summarize the position held by the Supreme Court regarding the taxation on partnership, the Supreme Court, in principle, considers the in-kind contribution to partnership as a transfer, and also considers that the property corresponding to the partnership interest of the transferor also has been transferred. As for the income classification for the income gained through the transfer of partnership interest, there are two types of precedents of the Supreme Court-i.e., classification as capital gains and classification as business income. In this respect, however, it seems reasonable to tax such income as capital gains. More specifically, if the business income of the partnership, which has been already accrued, has not yet been taxed or a certain income may be considered as a distribution of liquidation proceeds, such income could be taxed as business income or be subject to a gift tax. In other words, rather than conducting income classification on the difference between the amount received and the basis, specific facts pertaining to the circumstances of occurrence of the income subject to taxation should be considered in greater detail, and thus we should first examine whether such income, as business income that has already occurred or as a distribution of liquidation proceeds, falls under business income. In the meantime, in relation to the transfer of partnership interest under the existing regulations of the Tax Law, there is a likelihood of double taxation occurringupon the increase of value attributable to a single property (unrealized appreciation). Under the current situation without a provision that controls the outbreak of such double taxation, by reasonable interpretation of the regulations on deduction of expenses or deduction of basis, double taxation should be avoided. Furthermore, the supply of service to the partnership may be deemed as earned income if it is acknowledged to be a supply of dependentand subordinate service. In the case of a fixed allowance of a managing partner, if it is acknowledged that an allowance under the same conditions would have been paid even if a third party supplied such service, then such allowance may well be considered as salary.

조합 현물출자에 대한 양도소득세 과세 방안

문성훈,정문현,임동원 한국세무학회 2014 세무학 연구 Vol.31 No.2

The Capital Gains Taxation on the contribution in kind of Partnership, the transfer of status of Partner and property of Partnership, the withdrawal from Partnership has relevance to the taxable entity of Partnership. At this present, the Income Tax hasn’t provisions in regard to the contribution in kind of Partnership. Furthermore, the taxing authorities and the Supreme Court don’t hold together in taxation. Thus, it is confusing to taxpayer. In terms of the taxation equity, a business income is taxed to Partner that the taxation regards Partnership as a conduit, a capital gains is taxed to Partnership that the taxation regards Partnership as a entity, this is doesn’t hold together in taxation. The Capital Gains Taxation is hold together in the Partnership taxation, and it isn’t taxed to Partner on the contribution in kind of Partnership. Consequently, the Capital Gains Tax should be taxed to Partner in proportion on the transfer. If a matter of policy is necessary to the taxation on the contribution in kind of Partnership, it should be taxed to the other’s ratio of share on the contribution in kind. And, when Partner withdraw from Partnership, It would be fair to argue that partner made over the share to the other Partner. But, under the current system, the Capital Gains Tax isn’t taxed for a equity interest of Partnership. Therefore, the Income Tax should be included taxably equity interest of Partnership through the Tax Law amendment. 조합에 대한 현물출자 및 조합원 지위의 양도, 조합의 부동산 등 양도, 조합원 탈퇴 등에 있어서 양도소득세의 과세문제는 기본적으로 “조합”의 과세상 실체를 인정할 수 있는지 여부와 밀접하게 관련되어 있다. 현재 조합에 대한 현물출자 등과 관련하여 소득세법에서 명문규정을 두고 있지 않으며, 과세관청의 해석과 판례 등에 의하여 과세가 이루어지고 있는 상황이다. 또한, 과세관청 및 대법원의 입장이 일치하지 않는 부분이 있고 일관된 과세논리를 유지하고 있지 않아서 납세의무자에게 혼란을 주고 있다. 과세형평성 측면에서 사업소득의 경우 조합을 도관으로 보아 조합원에게 직접 과세하는데, 양도소득만 조합을 과세상 실체로 보아 현물출자시 양도소득세를 과세하는 것은 논리적 일관성이 결여되어 있어 조합에 대해 과세의 일관성을 유지해야 할 것이다. 조합원이 현물출자시에도 과세하지 않고 조합이 대상자산을 양도할 때 지분비율대로 조합원에게 양도소득을 과세하는 것이 타당할 것으로 보인다. 조합원의 조합에 대한 현물출자가 소득세법상 양도에 해당한다는 과세관청 실무의 입장에 따른 문제점들에 대해서는 다음과 같이 해석하여 적용하여야 한다. 현물출자시에는 타인지분만을 과세대상으로 하여야 하고, 조합원이 탈퇴하면서 대가를 받거나 지분을 양도할 때에 부동산을 직접 양도하는 것이 아니라 지분을 양도하는 것으로 보는 것이 타당할 것이다. 다만, 현행 양도소득세 과세체계에서는 ‘조합 지분권’이 과세대상으로 열거되어 있지 않아 과세할 수 없으므로 세법개정을 통해 양도소득세 과세대상으로 조합의 지분을 명시적으로 포함해야 할 것이다.