담보법의 현재와 미래 - 민법 시행 50주년을 맞이하여 -

김재형 한국민사법학회 2010 民事法學 Vol.52 No.-

The Civil Code of Korea, like those of most East Asian countries, is modeled after the modern civil codes of the continental European countries. The Civil Code specifies mortgage, pledge, and retention right as “security rights.” Among the three types of security rights, the “mortgage” represents a right to obtain satisfaction of a claim in preference to other creditors, out of an immovable property furnished by a debtor or by a third party as collateral without transferring its possession (Article 356). The Civil Code has introduced the provision of the keun-mortgage, which stipulates that a mortgage can be created by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357). The Civil Code contains 17 articles provided for the mortgage and only one of them deals with the “keun-mortgage.” However, in practice, the mortgage is rarely used while the keun-mortgage is the form more frequently utilized. The pledge consists of two types: movable property pledge and pledge of rights. The “movable property pledge” allows a pledgee to hold possession of the movables which he or she has received from a debtor or a third party as collateral for his or her claim, and to obtain satisfaction of such claim out of the movables in preference to other creditors (Article 329). Receivables and stocks can be the object of a “pledge of rights” (Article 345). When a possessor of a property or a valuable instrument belonging to another person has any claim arising in respect of such property or instrument and if payment of the claim is due, he or she may have a “retention right” to retain its possession until the claim is satisfied (Article 320). The retention right can be established on both immovable and movable properties. In Korea, security rights law is an area currently undergoing substantial changes in response to the rapidly-evolving financial market. In February 2009, Korea's Ministry of Justice launched the Civil Code Amendment Committee to review the Civil Code in its entirety and to draft amendments to the Code. For the year of 2009, the Ministry of Justice had planned to focus only on the revision of the “General Parts of the Civil Code” but added security rights law on its agenda for the year despite the fact that security rights law falls under the category of real rights law. They found improving the existing security rights law to be an urgent task. Meanwhile, it is particularly worth noting that the Act on Security of Movable Property, Receivables, etc. has been passed by the Legislature in May 2010. The Act is expected to allow registration of security rights on movable properties and receivables once it takes effect in June 2012. It is a groundbreaking legislation as it allows registration of security rights in cases where movable properties or receivables are put up as collateral. The Act is also significant in the sense that a nation whose legal system is built upon continental civil law traditions has begun to take up elements of the American legal system. I first touch upon the security rights specified in the Civil Code, and then examine three topics that show the changes that have taken place since its enactment: i) keun-mortgage, which is the most important form of immovable security rights in Korea, ii) retention right, which becomes an important topic of the reform of the Civil Code, and iii) movable property and receivable as collateral.

『동산·채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률』의 주요쟁점 ─ 제정안 작성과정의 논의를 토대로 ─

김재형 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.61 No.-

The Act on Security of Movable Property, Receivables, etc.(“the Act”)is a groundbreaking change in the law of security rights, as the Act allows security rights on movable properties or receivables that are pledged as collateral to be registered. Following the 1997/1998 East Asian financial crisis, the Korean legal community began discussing the way to use movables and receivables as collateral, and a growing number of people called for an introduction of a legal system that enables the use of properties other than immovable for security purposes. Many legal scholars including myself voiced the need to reform the security rights system on movables and receivables. The Ministry of Justice formed the Special Subcommittee to Legislate Security System of Movables and Receivables on March 5, 2008. It took more than a year for the Subcommittee to draft and submit the bill “the Act on Security of Movable Property, Receivables, etc.,” to the Ministry of Justice on March 18, 2009. The Act was enacted on June 11, 2010 and came into effect on June 12, 2012. The Act introduces new types of security rights for movables and receivables. The Act also acknowledges pre-existing security rights on movables and receivables such as pledge and transfer of ownership for security purposes. Accordingly, the introduction of the Act does not deny the security rights acknowledged in the old system. If the new law did not acknowledge the old security rights and totally replaced the old law, as the UCC Article 9 did in the United States, the old security rights system would have been abruptly terminated. One of the key elements in reforming the law on movables and receivables lies in introducing a new publication method. According to the Civil Code, publication means for a movable property pledge is delivery (Article 330), and the publication means for pledge of rights and assignment of receivables is notification to the debtor or the consent of the debtor (Articles 346 and 450). Under the Act, security rights on movables or receivables shall be registered as “security rights.” There were some provisions in the bill that the Subcommittee regarded sufficiently rational but were possibly inconsistent with the Civil Code. These provisions are shelved for now, and they may be included in the Act after the Civil Code is amended.

지식재산권담보권의 문제와 그 개선방안

김태형 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2021 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.25 No.1

지식재산권은 재산적 가치를 가지는 중요한 매개체가 되었다. 그리고 이를 활용한 정책금융이나 자본력이 부족한 기업의 간 접적 지원책의 필요성이 대두되었다. 지식재산권을 활용한 금융 산업이 성장하고 있지만, 여전히 부동산과 신용을 중심으로 이 루어지고 있다. 지식재산권담보권의 활성화를 위해서는 문제점 을 검토, 개선방안의 제시가 필요하다. 첫째, 이중담보권의 문제가 있다. 미술저작물은 소유권과 저 작재산권이 분리된다. 따라서 이중담보권의 설정이 가능하다. 그로 인해서 담보권에 대한 권리관계의 파악이 어렵다. 그리고 담보물의 멸실로 인한 피해는 지식재산권담보권자에게 미친다. 이를 해결하기 위해서, 미술품등록부를 도입하여 미술품의 소유 권과 저작권의 공시를 강화시킴으로써 이중담보권의 문제를 해 결한다. 두 번째로, 담보권 등록원부의 분리되어 있다. 다양한 담보목 적물을 소유하고 있더라도 별도의 담보권을 설정해야 한다. 따 라서 사회적, 경제적 비용의 소비가 가중된다. 또한 상호관련된 동산과 지식재산권을 나누어 개별적으로 가치평가가 이루어지 기 때문에 제대로 된 가치평가가 이루어질 수 없다. 따라서 일 괄담보권과 이를 등기할 수 있는 통합담보등기의 시행하여, 다 른 종류의 담보목적물이라도 함께 가치평가를 하고 일괄적으로 담보권을 설정하여 등기할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 마지막으로, 지식재산권담보권의 사적실행을 허용하지 않는 문제점이 있었다. 따라서 채무불이행의 발생 시에는 법원의 경 매 절차를 따라야 한다. 지식재산권의 특성상 오히려 법원의 경매 절차보다 빠르게 담보권 실행의 필요성이 존재한다. 또한 정 부의 정책의 일환으로 시행되고 있는 ‘지식재산권 담보대출의 회수지원’은 결국 사적실행과 유사하다. 따라서 지식재산권담보 권에 있어서도 사적실행이 가능하도록, 「동산ㆍ채권 등의 담보 에 관한 법률」 제61조의 개정이 필요하다. Intellectual property rights have become an important medium of property value. And indirect support measures for companies with insufficient financial and capital capacity are needed. Although the financial industry using intellectual property rights is growing, it is still centered on real estate and credit.In order to revitalize intellectual property security rights, it is necessary to examine the problems and present measures to improve them. First, there is a problem of double security rights. The ownership and property rights of art works are separated. Therefore, it is possible to set up a double security interest. Therefore, it is difficult to grasp the relationship between the rights to the security interest. And if the collateral is lost, the damage will go to the intellectual property security interest holder. To solve this problem, we will introduce an art registry. In other words, it will strengthen the publication of art ownership and copyright, and solve the problem of dual security rights. Second, the security registry is separated. Even if you own a variety of collateral objects, you must set up a separate collateral right. Therefore, socioeconomic cost consumption increases. In addition, proper value evaluation cannot be carried out because interrelated property and intellectual property rights are separately evaluated. Therefore, the registration of lump-sum collateral and consolidated collateral shall be implemented. In other words, it evaluates the value with other types of collateral objects and registers the collateral right. Finally, there was the problem of not allowing Exercise of private security right. Therefore, in the event of default, you must follow the court auction procedures. Because of the nature of intellectual property rights, it is necessary to exercise the security rights earlier than the court auction procedures. In addition, Support for the Recovery of Intellectual Property Collateral Loans, which is part of the government's policy, is similar to Exercise of private security right. Therefore, it is necessary to amend Article 61 of 「the Act on the Security of Movables and Bonds」.

부동산담보신탁에서의 수익권의 성질에 대한 검토

김원순 ( Wonsoon Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.4

부동산담보신탁이 부동산금융계약에서 핵심적인 담보수단으로 활용되면서 그와 관련된 분쟁이 다수 발생하여 사회적 비용이 증가하고 있다. 법률관계의 법적 안정성과 예측가능성을 높이기 위하여 부동산담보신탁 수익권에 관한 기존의 연구 결과를 정리하고 아직 명확하게 규명되지 못한 기존 논의는 좀 더 발전시킬 필요가 있다. 신탁 수익권의 법적 성질에 관하여 여러 견해가 있었고 대법원은 채권설을 채택한 것으로 보인다. 그러나 모든 신탁 관계에 대해 공통된 신탁법리가 획일적·통일적으로 적용될 수 있는 것은 아니다. 신탁계약의 내용, 특성에 맞게 수익권의 성질을 달리 파악하고 신탁법리 구성을 달리해야 할 필요가 있다. 채권과 물권이라는 이분 법적 구분에 따라 담보신탁 우선수익권의 성질을 결정하는 것이 아니라, 담보신탁 법률관계를 파악하고 그에 적합한 신탁법리를 형성하는 과정에서 우선수익권의 성질이 함께 결정되어야 할 것이다. 신탁제도가 유연하고 탄력적인 제도라고 하더라도 당사자 간 합의에 따라 무한정 자유롭게 신탁계약의 내용을 정할 수 있는 것은 아니며 그 한계로서 기존 법체계와의 정합성이 요구된다. 형평법이 부재한 우리 사법체계에서 신탁법리를 입법적으로 완벽히 보완하기는 어려우므로 다른 기존제도와 달리 신탁제도의 경우 법원의 적극적인 판례 법리 형성 등을 통한 계약관계의 성질 규명과 그에 따른 계약 내용 자유의 한계 설정이 필요하다. 부동산담보신탁 관련 법리를 형성할 때 수익권이 채권적 성격과 물권적 성격을 모두 가진다는 점, 부동산담보신탁 수익권이 담보적 기능을 수행하고 특히 비전형담보로서 양도담보 등 법체계상 담보물권과 유사한 성질을 가진다는 점을 고려하여 담보물권의 법리를 일부 유추적용할 수도 있을 것이다. 담보신탁에 관한 대법원 2017. 6. 22. 선고 2014다225809 전원합의체 판결은 담보 신탁계약의 피담보채권인 금전채권이 전부명령에 따라 제3자에게 이전되는 경우 수익권의 운명이 쟁점으로 다루어졌다. 본 논문은 우선수익권과 피담보채권의 분리 가능성을 개별 신탁계약의 해석에 따라 결정되어야 할 문제로 파악하기보다는 부동산담보신탁계약 일반에 대해서 피담보채권과 우선수익권의 분리는 허용되지 않는다고 보는 성질상 한계를 정하는 것이 필요하다는 견해를 제시한다. 피담보채권과 분리된 우선수익권은 제한된 경제적 의미만을 가지고, 당사자의 지위나 권리관계를 불안정하게 만든다. 거래의 자유를 넓게 인정하는 것도 중요하지만, 계약관계의 불확실성, 의도하지 않은 결과의 발생, 당사자 또는 제3자의 거래 악용 가능성을 고려하여 피담보채권과 우선수익권을 함께 거래대상으로 삼도록 강제하는 것이 바람직하다. 서울고등법원 2018. 1. 17. 선고 2017나2036022 판결에서 법원은 변제자대위가 인정되는 대상은 채권자의 권리에 한정되므로, 우선수익권만 이전될 뿐, 변제자대위에 의해 수탁자에 의한 의무를 포함하는 수익자 지위까지 법률규정에 따라 당연히 이전받는 것은 아니라고 보았는데, 본 논문은 이러한 법원의 견해에 비판적이다. 우선수익자와 우선수익권을 가진 자가 분리된 상태의 법률관계를 어떻게 규율할 수 있을지, 과연 경제적으로 어떤 의미가 있을지 의문이다. 이는 수익권의 불가분성에도 반한다. 법정대위변제 상황에서 수익자 지위 양도금지 특약에 따라 수익권은 양도되더라도 수익자의 지위는 이전되지 않는다고 보아 신탁원부 변경이 허용되지 않는다면 당사자의 합의를 통해 대위변제 행사가 어렵거나 불가능한 재산을 만들어 낸다는 점에서 형평에 맞지 않는 결과를 초래한다. 부동산담보신탁의 목적 및 특성, 수익권의 성질을 고려한 신탁법리, 전부명령 및 대위변제에 대한 민사 법리 간 조화로운 해석을 도모한다면, ① 전부명령에 의해 우선수익권과 분리된 채 오직 피담보채권만이 이전되는 것이 명확한 경우에는 우선 수익권이 소멸된다고 보고, ② 대위변제에 의해 피담보채권이 이전될 때에는 우선수익권도 함께 이전되는 것으로 보고, ③ 수익자 지위 양도금지 특약이 있다고 하더라도, 대위변제 법리에 따라 우선수익권이 이전되는 경우에는 우선수익권과 불가분의 관계를 이루는 우선수익자의 지위도 함께 이전되는 것으로 보는 것이 바람직할 것이다. As real estate trusts for security purposes(hereinafter “real estate security trust”) are used as a key collateral in real estate project finance, many disputes have arisen and social costs are increasing. In order to increase the legal stability and predictability of transactions, it is necessary to further develop existing discussions about the beneficiary’s rights in real estate security trusts that have not yet been clarified. While the Supreme Court appears to have adopted the majority opinion that views beneficiary rights as personal rights, it is not appropriate to apply a single legal theory or doctrine uniformly to all kinds of trust relationships. It is necessary to understand the nature of the beneficiary rights differently and adjust or adapt doctrines, considering the attributes of each trust contract. The nature of the beneficiary right should not be determined upon the dichotomy between doctrines of personal rights and property rights. Rather it should be examined, while understanding contractual relationship of the real estate security trust through proper interpretation of trust agreements and formulating the most appropriate legal doctrines that can fully appreciate the attributes of such trust contract. Even if the trust system is a very flexible system, it is not possible to freely determine the contents of a trust contract indefinitely upon the agreement between the parties, and as a limitation, consistency with the existing legal system is required. Considering the absence of the equity law in the judicial system of the Republic of Korea, it is hard to resolve every trust-related issue by legislation. The nature of trust contract relationship should be investigated through formation of the court's active case law, and more limits on freedom of contract content are needed. When forming the security trust-related legal principles, it should be considered that the beneficiary right has both personal right-like character and real property right-like character and that the real estate security trust beneficiary’s rights perform a collateral function. In particular, it has properties similar to the non-standard collateral, so-called Yangdo-dambo, so it may be possible to apply some analogy of Yangdo-dambo legal principles to those of real estate security trust. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da225809 decided on Jun. 22, 2017, was the case about the fate of beneficiary rights in real estate security trust when secured loan was transferred to a third party, following the court’s assign order. While the court treated whether separation of beneficiary’s rights and secured claims is allowed as a problem that should be determined upon individual trust contracts, this paper suggests that it is necessary to establish the limit of nature of beneficiary rights that separation of secured bonds and beneficiary rights is not allowed. Beneficiary rights, separated from secured bonds, have only a limited economic meaning and destabilize the legal status of the parties. Although it is important to widely recognize freedom of contracts, it is desirable to force secured bonds and beneficiary rights to be traded together to avoid the uncertainty of the contractual relationship, occurrence of unintended consequences. In the Seoul High Court en banc Decision 2017Na2036022 decided on Jan. 17, 2018, the court ruled that only the beneficiary rights are transferred, and the beneficiary status, including obligations by the trustee, is not transferred. This paper criticizes the court’s approach. It is questionable how the beneficiary right and the beneficiary status can exist separately, and what will be its economic and legal outcome. This also goes against the indivisibility of beneficiary rights.

미국 연방도산법상 장래채권 양도담보의 효력 - 미국 연방도산법 제552조 제(b)항의 해석론과 그 시사점 -

최준규 한국민사법학회 2020 民事法學 Vol.90 No.-

이 글에서 필자는 미국연방도산법상 장래채권 양도담보의 효력에 관하여 그간충분히 의식되어 오지 못한 내용을 소개하고, 이로부터 비교법적 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다. 미국법에 따르면 계약체결 후 그 계약으로부터 장차 발생하는 권리는 해당 계약의 수익(proceeds)이다. 여기서 계약은 기초자산, 그 계약으로부터 장차 발생하는권리는 기초자산으로부터 발생하는 현금흐름이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 도산절차개시 전에 계약에 대하여 담보권을 취득한 자는 도산절차 개시 후 그 계약에 따라발생하는 채권에 대하여 담보권의 효력을 주장할 수 있다. 다만 ① 채무자가 자신의 노력과 시간을 투입하거나, 도산재단으로부터 비용을투입하여 해당 채권을 발생시킨 경우, ② 해당 채권이 채무자의 회생을 위해 필요한 경우에는, 법원이 형평을 고려하여 장래채권에 대한 담보권의 효력을 감축시킬수 있다. 그런데 이 과정에서 ① 장래채권에 대한 담보권의 효력을 아예 부정할 것인지, ② 장래채권의 가치 중 채무자가 기여한 ‘비율’만큼 담보권의 범위를 감축시킬 것인지, ③ 장래채권의 가치 중 채무자가 기여한 ‘액수’만큼을 담보권의 범위에서 공제할 것인지 불명확하다. 위와 같은 미국법의 태도는 우리법 해석론과 입법론에 관하여 다음과 같은 시사점을 준다. 첫째, 최근 우리법 해석론으로 “장래채권을 발생시키는 양도인의 계약상 지위가채무자의 재산으로부터 도산재단으로 이전된 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우에는 관리인하에서 그 계약이 이행되어 채권이 발생하는 때에도 그 채권에 대한 양도인의 사전처분은 효력이 있는 것이므로 그 채권은 양도담보목적물에 포함된다”는 견해가 주장되고 있다. 그런데 이러한 견해에 따르면 장래채권 발생에 채무자의 노력과 시간, 도산재단이 기여한 경우에도 그 대가를 특정 담보권자만 누리는 부당한 결과가 발생한다. 도산재단의 기여로 발생한 장래채권의 가치는 원칙적으로 도산재단에 귀속되어야 한다. 둘째, 도산재단의 기여로 발생한 장래채권의 가치는 도산재단에 귀속되어야 한다는 명제는 – 미국의 사례에서 확인되는 것처럼 - 그 적용과정에서 필연적으로 불명확성을 수반한다. 이러한 불명확성으로 인해 장래채권에 대한 담보거래가 ‘과도하게’ 위축될 수 있다. 이를 막기 위해서는 도산절차 개시 후 발생한 장래채권에 대하여 담보권 등의 효력이 미치는 요건을 미리 명확히 정해 둔 안전항(safe-harbor) 규정을 마련할 필요가 있다. 가령 ① 채무자의 영업재산 일체에 대하여 담보권을설정할 수 있도록 하고, 이러한 담보권자는 도산절차 개시 후 채무자의 장래의 매출채권에 대해서도 – 채무자의 시간, 노력, 도산재단 투입여부와 상관없이 - 원칙적으로 담보권의 효력을 주장할 수 있게 하는 입법을 고민할 필요가 있다. 또한 ② 양도인이 일정 규모 이상의 법인인 경우, 또는 양수인이 법이 정한 금융기관인 경우에 한정하여 장래채권 진정양도의 도산절차상 효력을 인정하는 입법을 고민할 필요가 있다. In this article, the author tried to analyze the section 552(postpetition effect of security interest) of the US Bankruptcy Code which has not received enough attention in korean comparative legal studies, and draw out implications for Korean law. Under the UCC system, the future rights arising from a contract can be the proceeds of current contract rights. The contract is the basic asset, and the future rights from the contract are the future income streams from the basic asset. Therefore according to the §552(b)(1) of the US Bankruptcy Code, the security rights in the contract which was concluded before the commencement of insolvency proceeding extend to the postpetition receivables from such contract. But under the §552(b)(1) of the US Bankruptcy Code, the court can cut off the security rights in the proceeds(=future receivables), when ① the debtor’s spending time, making efforts or the expenses from the bankruptcy estate contribute to increase the value of the proceeds or ② future receivables are necessary for the debtor’s rehabilitation. As to court’s cut-off, there exists flexibility or uncertainty.; ① The court may cut off all future receivables. On the other hand, ② the court can only reduce the security rights in the future receivables by the rate of the debtor’s or the bankruptcy estate’s contributions. ③ The court can also recognize the effect of the security rights in the future receivables up to the value of the total future receivables minus the amount of the debtor’s or the bankruptcy estate’s contributions. US Bankruptcy law’s basic position discussed above gives us the following implications regarding the interpretation of Korean law and Korean legislation. ① de lege lata : Recently, the following assertion is being made on the issue, the effect of security assignment of future claims in insolvency proceeding. “When the assignor’s contractual position that gives rise to future receivables was also transferred from the assignor's(=debtor’s) property to the bankruptcy estate, the future receivables that arose according to the trustees’s determination to assume such executory contract fall within the security interests.” But the author can not agree to this opinion, because according to this opinion the secured creditor can get the windfall gain at the expense of the bankruptcy estate, the time and efforts of the debtor. The bankruptcy estate should be used for all non-secured creditors, not for specific secured creditor. ② de lege ferenda : As we have already seen in the US cases, the proposition that the proceeds of the bankruptcy estate should be attributed to the bankruptcy estate may inevitably cause uncertainty in the application of such proposition. Whether to cut off the security interests, how much to reduce the security interests is entirely up to the discretion of the court. Such uncertainty may cause excessive chilling effect on the side of secured creditors. The bank may tend to undervalue unduly the future receivables, and may not make any loans secured by future receivables in fear of uncertainty. To prevent such negative effect, it is desirable to make a safe-harbor rule. (ⅰ) First, the author proposed the security-right system like that, the secured creditor can catch the debtor’s all operating assets under the one security right, and the debtor’s future account receivables arising after the commencement of the insolvency proceeding also fall within such security right in principle, irrespective of the debtor’s or the bankruptcy estate’s contribution to the value of future account receivables. (ⅱ) Second, the author proposed the legislation, that in case of true sale (not security assignment) of future receivables allows explicitly the effect of true sale of future claims in insolvency proceeding, if certain additional conditions are met (ex. the debtor is a corporation over certain size, or the assignee is the authorized financial...

유동집합동산 담보의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구 - 새로운 공시인 등기제도 도입을 중심으로 -

김인유 한국민사법학회 2009 民事法學 Vol.45 No.1

Being a device to activate inventory security, this study is a thesis that suggests an enactment of Speical Law to improve notification method. The global trend today is promoting security rights on movables law following the unification of international trade law. Needless to say, the central axis is security system on movables of the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States of America( UCC). Looking at our country, as an improvement device for official method that was initiated as a problem for existing legislation for the security rights on movables and as a notification method for the security rights on movables, introducing registration system may be considered. If the essence of the right of pledge for the Movables, transfer of security, proprietary reservation and etc. is security, the basic consideration of security system as a matter of UCC that treats the type as one by understanding it functionally and integrating it as one security rights can be very simple and clear. Therefore, there is a security rights that is established realistically for a particular creditor concerning the property that is possessed by the debtor, considering the fact that it turns possession revision into notification method and solves the problem of existing system that does not notify it externally, it can be one practical legislative proposal. However, considering various circumstances, it easy too early to introduce legislation system of UCC to our legislation. Because the movables security system and legislative guide of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL), basically start from the principle of contract freedom, our security law of jus in rem adopts the principle of a real rights and strictly provides by law the kinds and contents of jus in rem. Due to these difference in thought between Anglo-American law and the continental law, the method for registration, enrollment is divided into the method for registering American transaction specifications that is based on the contract freedom and Japanese registration system that is based on enforce regulations in real rights. Thus, introducing filing system of UCC and filing system of UNCITRAL in full-scale is difficult without tearing down enforce regulations in real rights. that is the main principle for our the law of reality. This is also a reason why nations of the continental law are unified about movables security law and passive about standardized movables security system. In addition, if the filing system is taken, they have to deny an acquisition in good faith and this is considered a burden. Of course, just like concerning UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG), bonds have been unified quickly due to their characteristics of character of worldwide and universality. However, it is difficult to unify or simplify a real rights due to its characteristics of character of laws derived from the customs and traditions of a country and characteristic of closing. In our case at this moment, rather than the security rights on movables of UCC which is currently adopting registration system as a unified notification not only for movables, but also for obligation, I think it would be reasonable to introduce registration system that can harmonize with a system of our civil law limited to essential parts(for example, there exists Chattels mortgage through registration · filing for ships, air crafts, automobiles, construction machines). As a direction for legislation, rather than accepting it before the civil law, we need to give inventory security its location as special law of the civil law in restricted areas so that it will not shake our the civil law system. In this way, it will not cause any confusion to our civil law principle, and harmonize with existing principle. Japan did not adopt the security rights on movables in full-scale, but met the demands of companies by only establishing a special law restricted only to essenti...

지식재산권을 활용한 담보

이성진 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2014 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.9

It is obvious that we have to establish advanced the financial system to mortgage movable assets, receivables and intellectual property rights besides the real estate as limitative goods. Especially, intellectual property rights have the difficulty on assessment of the value as security, but availability as security is enough. The act on movables security system which is called 『Act on Security of movables and claim etc.』 was enforced in order to activate a movables security system recently. This act introduced the new collateral system which is different with the existing collateral which utilized movable assets, receivables and intellectual property rights. The next two will be certainly improved for the security of intellectual property rights along with the enforcement of this act. First, it is necessary that registers scattered intellectual property rights and a security right on single register book on intellectual property rights. Second, in case of default, personal enforcement as well as auction of intellectual property rights as security must be allowed for efficient and prompt exercise of security right. I expect that Korea financial system is stably operated through an in-depth study on two improvement point.

동산담보등기에 관한 소고

이승우(Lee, Seungwoo) 전남대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.36 No.1

1990년대 말 금융위기로 인하여 부동산 가치가 하락하면서 금융담보제도의 개혁이 이루어지며 자산유동화 등에 관련된 특별법이 제정되었다. 이후 동산, 채권 등의 자산을 담보로 하는 수요가 점차 증대될 것으로 기대하며 2010년 6월 동산ㆍ채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률이 제정되어 2012년 6월부터 시행되게 되었다. 이 법에 의한 동산담보등기제도는 기존의 등기·등록을 통한 담보설정을 할 수 없었던 동산에 대하여 안정적으로 담보권을 설정할 수 있도록 하였다. 이 법의 모태가 되었던 미국의 통일상법전에 의하면 자연인과 법인이 사적자치의 원칙과 계약자유의 원칙에 따라 동산에 관하여 담보권을 설정할 수 있다. 그 목적물은 장래 취득할 동산을 포함한 모든 형태의 동산 또는 정착물, 부속물 등이 될 수 있어서 실물경제에 유연하게 활용할 수 있다. 세계 각국이 동산담보제도를 활용하여 경제활성화에 노력하고 있으나 담보권설정의 당사자로서 법인은 인정하나 자연인에 대해서는 제한을 두고 있다. 우리나라는 기업과 상호등기를 한 개인사업자가 활용할 수 있도록 제한하고 있다. 이 법에 의하면 동산담보등기는 부동산등기와 달리 동산의 성질이나 보관장소에 따라 목적물을 특정할 수 있는데, 필수적 기재사항으로 그 성질과 보관장소에 따라 담보물을 특정할 수 있다. 그리고 이러한 필수적 기재사항 이외에 담보물인 동산을 보다 더 구체적으로 특정하기 위하여 유익적 기재사항인 동산의 명칭, 크기, 중량, 재질, 제조일, 색상, 형태, 제조자, 보관장소의 명칭, 점유자 등을 기재할 수 있다. 이 동산담보등기는 인적편성주의에 의하여 담보권설정자의 담보권을 등기할 수 있는데 동산담보권의 설정, 이전, 변경, 말소 또는 연장등기를 할 수 있다. 이 담보제도는 그동안 기존 담보제도 하에서 담보설정에 어려움이 많았던 중소기업이나 자영업자들에게 도움이 되어야 할 것이며 제도의 취지에 맞는 운영과 제도적 정비가 필요하다 할 것이다. Following the 1997/1998 East Asian financial crisis, the Korean legal community began discussing the way to use movables as collateral, and a growing number of people called for an introduction of a legal system that enables the use of properties other than immovable for security purposes. The Act on Security of Movable Property, Receivables is a groundbreaking change in the law of security rights, as the Act allows security rights on movable properties that are pledged as collateral to be registered. The Ministry of Justice took more than a year for the Subcommittee to draft and submit the bill “the Act on Security of Movable Property, Receivables, etc.”. The Act was enacted on June 10, 2010 and came into effect on June 11, 2012. The Act introduces new types of security rights for movables. The Act also acknowledges preexisting security rights on movables such as pledge and transfer of ownership for security purposes. Accordingly, the introduction of the Act does not deny the security rights acknowledged in the old system. If the new law did not acknowledge the old security rights and totally replaced the old law, as the UCC Article 9 did in the United States, the old security rights system would have been abruptly terminated. One of the key elements in reforming the law on movables lies in introducing a new publication method. According to the Civil Code, publication means for a movable property pledge is delivery(Article 330), and the publication means for pledge of rights is notification to the debtor or the consent of the debtor (Articles 346). Under the Act, security rights on movables shall be registered as “security rights.” There were some provisions in the bill that the Subcommittee regarded sufficiently rational but were possibly inconsistent with the Civil Code.

지적재산권의 담보활용방안

최경환(Choi Kyung Hwan),이기용(Lee Ki Yong) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2007 성균관법학 Vol.19 No.2

  In 21C, it would be said that monetary circulation is one of the most important features in our society. In addition, so are intellectual property rights. In this context, circulation of money with intellectual property rights is also considered significant. Nevertheless, in reality, it"s real property that has mainly been thought of as security, that"s why application of intellectual property rights as security for a loan is looked upon as atypical.<BR>  However, our society is now driven and urged by necessity of application of them as security. And as for establishment of a pledge right on copyright, patent and other intellectual property rights, there are particular articles in Copyright Act, Patent Act and etc. But we have some problems and difficulties in taking advantage of intellectual property rights for security, for example troubles in evaluation of intellectual property rights and interpretation or construction of the laws.<BR>  Anyway, apart from evaluation of intellectual property rights, which has been dealt with in some previous studies, I would like to focus on the aspect of difficulties in interpreting systematically some articles in the Civil Act, Copyright Act, Patent Act and so on. Especially, as for establishment of a pledge right on intellectual property rights, I think that there are some considerable points at issue, for instance, legal basis and nature, and range of validity-especially for proceeds- and subrogation of pledge of rights.<BR>  In fact, so far these have rarely been discussed in previous reports, where it"s merely said that the nature of pledge on intellectual property rights is similar to that of mortgage. Rather than that, I think, however, more important and effective ways to look upon and solve these problems are needed. So I would like to express that we need to lay a scheme and then take several steps for Application of Intellectual Property Rights as Security. That is to say, not by disposal but by application to security of the rights, we can expect intellectual property to continue to develop and improve and we should find the way. To put it concretely, I propose that we can consider the followings. Royalty or fee should be covered by extending the valid range of pledge or diversion of nature of subrogation.<BR>  On the other side, as for transfer for security of intellectual property rights, I suggest that the traditional rules of liquidation money or liquidation period cannot be adhered. In this context, way to exercise of security right on intellectual property rights should be modified and developed. Despite my passion and intention. I can"t find the best way to modify and establish these rules. But I find one thing clear, that is. it"s time to employ all available means for transaction on security of intellectual property rights.

헌법상 기본권으로서 안전권에 관한 소고

장선미 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2023 法學論集 Vol.27 No.4

The constitutional academia discussed the “right to security” for a long time as a basic right not stipulated in the Constitution to respond constitutionally to risks that threaten the safe survival of members of our society. The long-standing discussion of the “right to security” is meaningful in that it is a joint effort to solve the social problems raised by our society, but it is also meaningful in that the discussion is not only very fruitful but also has achieved great results in constitutional theory. At a time when the Constitutional Amendment Advisory Committee under the chairman of the National Assembly began full-fledged activities in January 2023, I tried to review the existing discussions in our academia and make suggestions for the development of right-to-security-related discussions. Specifically, based on these discussions, I suggest to classify two different rights - the “right to security” that is already recognized and the right to security” that should be introduced through constitutional amendment in the future should be classified. In other words, the “right to security for life and body” is already recognized as a basic right under the Constitution, and in the case of “the right to safety beyond this range”, it needs to be introduced through explicit constitutional acceptance through constitutional amendment. This distinction will clarify the issues mixed in the discussion of the right to safety and will be useful in the discussion of constitutional amendment related to the “right to security”. It was also argued that in the case of the right to safety for life and the body, it is necessary to review the relationship between the “right to security” under international human rights norms and the right to safety under the domestic constitution in the area of protection. Among the discussions on the “right to security” in Korea, there is an article that cites the international human right to security as the basis for the constitutional right to security, but the right to security claimed by the domestic discussions is different in terms of the international human right to security. This is because discussions on domestic security rights are based on a special social context in Korea. Therefore, serious discussions on how to establish the relationship between the special domestic context and the right to security under the international human rights norms we have joined, and the difference between the right to security as a basic domestic right and the right to security under the international human rights norms must take place. Finally, I argue that in order for the right to security as a basic right under the Constitution to be substantially guaranteed, it is essential to develop the review standard for right to security. The review standard of the Korean Constitutional Court on the implementation of obligation to protect basic rights can neutralize the right to security. If the nature of the right is defined in line with the right to life and right to liberty, a proportionality test equivalent to these basic rights is necessary, and specific review standards must be established to consider the special nature of the right to security from danger. 헌법학계는 우리 사회 구성원의 안전한 생존을 위협하는 위험에 대한 헌법적으로 대응으로 현행 헌법상 명시되지 않은 기본권으로서 ‘안전권’에 관하여 오랜 시간 논의하였다. 실제로 2009년, 2014년 그리고 2018년 개헌 논의 과정에서 ‘안전권’ 신설에 대한 학계의 논의가 상당 부분 반영된 바 있다. ‘안전권’에 관한 헌법학계의 오랜 논의는 헌법현실이 제기한 문제를 해결하기 위한 공동의 노력이라는 점에서도 의미가 있지만, 그 논의의 면면이 매우 구체적일 뿐만 아니라 헌법이론적으로도 큰 성과가 있었다는 점에서도 의미가 있다. 나는 이 논문에서 2023년 1월 국회의장 직속 개헌 자문위원회가 본격적인 활동을 개시한 현시점에서 학계의 기존 논의를 분석하고, 이에 기초하여 ‘안전권’ 관련 논의의 발전을 위하여 ‘안전권’의 헌법적 지향에 관한 몇 가지 견해를 제시하였다. 먼저 ‘안전권’ 논의에서 현재 이미 인정되고 있는 ‘안전권’과 앞으로 개헌을 통해 도입되어야 할 ‘안전권’을 구분하였다. 즉 생명 및 신체에 대한 안전권은 이미 헌법상 기본권으로 인정되고 있으며, 이 범위를 넘는 ‘안전권’의 경우 개헌을 통한 명시적 헌법수용을 통해 도입될 필요가 있다. 이러한 구분은 안전권 관련 논의에 혼재되어 있는 논점을 명확히 하고, 이후 ‘안전권’ 관련 개헌 논의에 유용할 것이다. 다음으로 생명 및 신체 등에 대한 안전권의 경우 국제인권규범상 ‘안전권’과 국내 헌법상 ‘안전권’이 보호영역에 있어 어떤 관계가 있는지에 대한 검토가 필요함을 주장하였다. 국내 안전권 논의 가운데 헌법상 안전권의 인정 근거로 자유권 규약을 드는 문헌도 있지만, 실제 해당 연구가 주장하는 ‘안전권’은 자유권 규약상 ‘안전권’과 보호영역에서 차이가 있다. 이는 국내 ‘안전권’ 관련 논의가 국내의 특수한 사회적 맥락에 터잡고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 이러한 국내의 특수한 맥락상 ‘안전권’과 우리가 가입한 국제인권규범상의 ‘안전권’의 관계를 어떻게 정립할 것인지, 국내 기본권으로서 ‘안전권’과 국제인권규범상 ‘안전권’의 차이에 대한 진지한 논의가 헌법상 안전권 논의에서 반드시 이루어져야 한다. 끝으로 헌법상 기본권으로서 ‘안전권’이 실질적으로 보장되기 위해서는 헌법재판소의 기본권으로서 안전권에 대한 심사기준 개발이 필수적이라는 점을 지적하였다. 현재의 헌법재판소의 기본권보호의무 심사 관행은 이러한 ‘안전권’을 형해화할 수 있다. 안전권의 성격을 생명권 및 신체의 자유와 같은 선상에서 규정한다면, 이러한 기본권 심사와 같은 수준의 비례성 심사가 필요하며, 위험으로부터 안전의 보장이라는 ‘안전권’의 특수한 성격을 심사에서 고려할 수 있는 구체적 심사기준을 정립할 필요가 있다.