영미법상 신탁과 그 변형으로서 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린과 내셔널 트러스트

김영희 ( Young Hee Kim ) 법과사회이론학회 2016 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.51

영미법에 기원을 두는 신탁(트러스트)은 위탁자가 자신의 자산을 수익자를 위하여 수탁자에게 신탁하면, 수탁자가 해당 자산의 법적 소유자로서 사실상 소유자인 수익 자의 이익을 위하여 해당 자산을 적절하게 관리하는 것을 내용으로 하는 재산법상 제도이다. 이와 같은 신탁 제도는 오늘날 재산법 안팎에서 다양하게 변형되어 활용되 고 있는데, 공공적 뉘앙스를 강하게 가지고 있는 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린상 퍼블릭 트러스트나 내셔널 트러스트 운동상 내셔널 트러스트도 신탁의 변형의 한 예들이다. 이중에 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린은 해당 자산의 소유자가 국가든 공공이든 개인이든 그리고 그 소유자가 해당 자산을 실제로 신탁하였든 아니하였든을 불문하고 해당 자산이 공공의 이익을 위해 국가나 지방자치단체에게 신탁되어 있다고 구성하는 법 리이다. 그런데 법사적으로 보면 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린의 고전적인 적용 대상은 물이나 해안 등으로, 국가나 지방자치단체가 해당 자산의 소유자인 것이 일반적이었 다. 그러므로 관련 논의의 중점이 국가나 지방자치단체에 의한 자산관리 행정에 놓였 다. 하지만 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린의 적용 대상이 점차 자연환경 일반으로 확대되면 서 해당 자산의 소유자가 개인인 경우들이 늘어나게 되었다. 그리하여 오늘날 관련 논의의 중점은 해당 자산을 이용할 공공의 권리성 인정과 해당 자산의 공공 이용이 초래하는 소유자 권리 제한에 대한 합리화 등으로 옮겨져 있다. 그런 한편 내셔널 트러스트는 시민이 주도하는 일종의 사회운동으로, 공공에게 가치 있는 자연자산이 나 문화자산을 보존하고 해당 자산을 공공의 이용에 공여하는 것을 내용으로 한다. 이 트러스트의 실질이 시민운동임에도 불구하고 트러스트라는 명칭을 가지는 것은 이 운동에 관여하는 자들이 트러스트 법리를 이용하여 해당 자산을 소유하고 운영하 는 구성을 취하고 있기 때문이다. 그런즉 퍼블릭 트러스트 독트린상 퍼블릭 트러스트 와 내셔널 트러스트 운동상 내셔널 트러스트는 모두 재산법상 신탁 제도를 이용하고 있고, 공공의 이익 내지 이용을 위한 것이며, 해당 자산이 자연이나 환경과 밀접하게 관련되어 있다는 점 등에서 공통적이다. 하지만 두 트러스트의 존재 맥락 및 두 트러 스트가 신탁 제도를 이용하는 구체적인 모습은 확연히 다르다. Both the public trust and the national trust are trusts designed by using of the trust system under the common law. The two trusts are common in their public shade of meaning and in their relationship with the public`s basic rights about nature and environment. But the two trusts are different from each other, and we need different approaches to them. Fundamentally the public trust is just a trust for the interest of the public as its beneficiary in the trust system. Thus there can be a public trust when someone actually trusts something for the public. Accordingly it is ‘the public trust doctrine’, not ‘the public trust’ itself, which does play its role in making it possible for the public to access and use the meaningful assets such as water, seashore, environment regardless of their legal owners actually have trusted them for the benefit of the public. Under the public trust on the basis of the public trust doctrine, the trustee is the nation or the state. But it is little bit convoluted to say who are the trusters. In comparison, the national trust is the organization which is resulted from of a social movement led by citizens for keeping meaningful social assets, especially environmental assets and historic assets. It has the name of ‘national’ trust because the civic movement is spread over the national movement in its hue and its influence. However, it is the national ‘trust’ because the civic movement uses the trust system for operating. Under the national trust, the trustee is the national trust and the trusters are the participating citizens.

집합행동, 신뢰, 법 -공적 신뢰의 토대에 관한 고찰-

김도균 ( Dok Yun Kim ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2013 서울대학교 법학 Vol.54 No.3

Trust in the law is a very important social capital which plays a key role for developing and maintaining a good society. This article has two goals. The first is to develop a theoretical framework for justifying the possibility and necessity of trusting law. The second is to articulate conditions for trusting law in the light of the logic of collective action. The possibility of trust in general consists in reciprocity which emerges from interactions between homo reciprocans. Having examined the relevance of reciprocity for trusting social institutions, i.e. public trust, this article extends the logic of reciprocity into the theme of law and trust, and tries to explore the specific set of values which contribute to engender ‘generalized trust’, especially trust in the law. Those trust-engendering values are truth-telling, promise-keeping, fairness and solidarity. When legal institutions and officials try to promote and enforce these values, the law can claim to trust, authority, and obedience. Only if such conditions are satisfied, a law-abiding society will be entrenched, and therewith a trust-equilibrium in society can be achieved.

신탁재산 처분에 따른 부가가치세 납세의무자

김희철 사법발전재단 2018 사법 Vol.1 No.44

Article 1(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) identifies transaction, namely, the “supply of goods or services” as the object of value-added taxation. Article 2(1)1 of the same Act identifies the entrepreneur, namely, “a person in the business of independently supplying goods or services regardless of its profit purpose” as the person liable to pay value-added tax. Article 6(1) defines supply of goods as “a delivery or transfer of goods based on any contractual or legal grounds.” In previous rulings, the Supreme Court held that, as a matter of principle, a truster (not a trustee) is liable to pay value-added tax due on the management and disposal of trust property but in the event that a beneficiary (not a truster) is designated as the party to whom the benefits from a trust arrangement is to be preferentially attributed, that beneficiary is liable to pay value-added tax due within the scope that the preferred beneficiary right is exercisable. Establishing the requirements for taxation by law that was passed by the National Assembly, which is a representative body of the people, is consistent with the principle of no taxation without law. Yet, unlike other tax-related statutes (i.e., the Income Tax Act, the Corporate Tax Act, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the Local Tax Act), the Value-Added Tax Act does not include any provision on tax liability arising from trust transactions. Against this backdrop, the reasonableness of the Supreme Court’s established position leaves a lot to be desired in similar cases where the trustee, who administered the trust affairs as a contractual party and the subject to whom the rights and obligations of the trust property accrue, engaged in a transactional act involving the supply of goods. Accordingly, in the subject case, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision by holding to the purport that the person liable to pay value-added tax arising from the supply of trust property shall be the trustee or beneficiary under a trust agreement to whom the profit and expense arising from the disposal of the specific trust property ultimately accrue. The former Value-Added Tax Act only taxes the transaction itself, namely, the “supply of goods or services” that generates added value, without deeming the income earned or the added value created from the transaction to be taxable items. As such, Korean value-added tax features the characteristics of a transaction tax, imposed on the external form of transaction instead of the substantive income. In principle, whether a party constitutes a person liable for value-added tax shall likewise be determined based on the transactional act of supplying goods and services, instead of the attribution of the profit or expense arising from the transaction. Meanwhile, under the Trust Act, trust means a relationship in which the truster transfers specific property right to the trustee or performs other disposition to have the trustee manage and dispose of the property in question for the benefit of the trust. Therefore, in cases where the trustee supplies goods while managing and disposing of the trust property transferred by the truster, the trustee himself/herself administers the trust affairs as a contractual party and the subject to whom the rights and obligations of the trust assets accrue. As can be seen, the subject case that deemed the trustee, a transactional party, to be the liable taxpayer is tenable in light of the legal doctrine on value-added taxation or the trust law principle. 구 부가가치세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9915호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조 제1항 제1호는 ‘재화 또는 용역의 공급’이라는 거래를 부가가치세 과세대상으로 규정하고 있고, 제2조 제1항 제1호는 ‘영리목적의 유무에 관계없이 사업상 독립적으로 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 자’인 사업자를 부가가치세 납세의무자로 정하고 있으며, 제6조 제1항은 재화의 공급을 ‘계약상 또는 법률상의 모든 원인에 의하여 재화를 인도 또는 양도하는 것’으로 정하고 있다. 종래 대법원은 신탁재산의 관리·처분 등으로 인한 부가가치세 납세의무자는 원칙적으로 수탁자가 아닌 위탁자이나, 신탁계약에서 위탁자 이외의 수익자가 지정되어 신탁의 수익이 우선적으로 수익자에게 귀속하게 되어 있는 타익신탁의 경우에는, 그 우선수익권이 미치는 범위 내에서는 수익자가 부가가치세 납세의무자라고 판단하였다. 그러나 과세요건 등은 국민의 대표기관인 국회가 제정한 법률로써 규정하여야 하는 것이 조세법률주의의 당연한 요청으로서, 부가가치세법은 소득세법, 법인세법, 상속세 및 증여세법, 지방세법과 달리 신탁에서의 납세의무자에 관하여 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 신탁재산에 대한 권리와 의무의 귀속주체로서 계약당사자가 되어 재화의 공급이라는 거래행위를 한 수탁자가 있음에도 종래 대법원과 같은 해석이 타당한지 의문이 있었다. 이에 대상판결은 신탁재산의 공급에 따른 부가가치세의 납세의무자는 그 처분 등으로 발생한 이익과 비용이 최종적으로 귀속되는 신탁계약의 위탁자 또는 수익자가 되어야 한다는 취지의 종전 판례를 변경하여, 거래당사자인 수탁자를 부가가치세 납세의무자로 보아야 한다고 판단하였다. 구 부가가치세법은 부가가치 창출을 위한 ‘재화 또는 용역의 공급’이라는 거래 그 자체를 과세대상으로 하고 있을 뿐 그 거래에서 얻은 소득이나 부가가치를 직접적인 과세대상으로 삼고 있지 않다. 부가가치세는 실질적인 소득이 아닌 거래의 외형에 대하여 부과하는 거래세의 형태를 띠고 있으므로, 부가가치세법상 납세의무자에 해당하는지 역시 원칙적으로 그 거래에서 발생한 이익이나 비용의 귀속이 아니라 재화 또는 용역의 공급이라는 거래행위를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. 그런데 신탁법률관계에서 수탁자가 위탁자로부터 이전받은 신탁재산을 관리·처분하면서 재화를 공급하는 경우에, 수탁자 자신이 신탁재산에 대한 권리와 의무의 귀속주체로서 계약당사자가 되어 신탁업무를 처리하게 된다. 따라서 거래행위자인 수탁자를 부가가치세 납세의무자라고 판단한 대상판결은 부가가치세나 신탁의 법리에 비추어 타당하다.

상속수단으로서의 신탁

최수정 한국민사법학회 2006 民事法學 Vol.34 No.-

Trust as a Device for Succession A trust cannot exist without a fund owned by a trustee obliged to deal with it as a segregated fund according to the terms of the trust prescribed by the settlor at the time he creates the trust. The settlor must therefore ensure that ownership of the intended trust assets is transferred to the trustee, whether by will or in his lifetime pursuant to a contract. And no trust can exist unless the trustee is, or will be, under an obligation to another in respect of the trust fund. Thus there must be a beneficiary with a right to enforce the terms of the trust against the trustee. This mechanism of the trust plays important role in the context of succession. That is, the trust is a very flexible device for structuring the benefits which property can provide, in particular in ways which are impossible or inconvenient to do simply by making an outright gift. Because this kind of trusts can be qualified as a testamentary gift, they have to comply with the law of succession : they have to meet the requirements of the succession law as well as the trust law. This article thus examines the formalities, conditions and effects of the trust created inter vivos or by will from a succession point of view in depth. Not only the trust principles and codes of England and US but also the Japanese Trust Act are considered comparatively. Moreover many issues arising from the relations between Korean Trust Act and Civil Code are carefully looked at, and some constructions corresponding both regulations are proposed.

Initial Trust with Unknown E-tailers in the Context of Online Gift Shopping

Jaeha Lee,Seung-Eun Lee 한국마케팅과학회 2010 마케팅과학연구 Vol.20 No.4

This study seeks to investigate the relationships of constructs related to initial trust with unknown e-tailers in the context of online gift shopping. Trust is an important issue in the online market since the Internet is considered to be a relatively risky shopping channel due to potential credit or identity fraud. This is true particularly in the context of online gift shopping. When shopping for gifts, the buyer is not the ultimate consumer of the product, so the consumer’s risk perceptions may increase. Therefore, online gift shoppers are more likely to be threatened by significant risks and uncertainties than other kinds of shoppers when they transact with unknown e-tailers. The conceptual framework of this study is primarily based on McKnight et al. (2002), who provide the theoretical conceptualization and empirical validation of initial trust in the online environment. Initial trust in an online environment is not based on customers’ previous experience with and meaningful knowledge of the e-tailer, but on characteristics of the web transaction environment (institution-based trust), the e-tailer (trusting beliefs, trusting intentions), and the end-users’ own disposition to trust. McKnight et al. (2002) propose four trust-related constructs within the broad framework of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975): disposition to trust (a general propensity to trust others); institution-based trust (perceptions of the institutional environment); trusting beliefs (perceptions of specific web vendor attributes); and trusting intention (intention to engage in trust-related behaviors with a specific web vendor). McKnight et al. (2002) suggest that disposition to trust and institution-based trust affect trusting beliefs and trusting intention and trusting beliefs also affect trusting intention. Based on the framework and literature review, the following hypotheses were proposed: Consumers’ trusting beliefs in an unknown e-tailer will positively affect their intentions to purchase from its website in the context of online gift shopping (H1); Customers’ perceived institution-based trust will positively affect their trusting beliefs in an unknown e-tailer in the context of online gift shopping (H2); Consumers’ perceptions of an unknown e-tailer’s site quality will positively affect their trusting beliefs in the context of online gift shopping (H3); and Consumers’ perceptions of an unknown e-tailer’s site quality will positively affect their intentions to purchase from the e-tailer’s website in the context of online gift shopping (H4). One-hundred-and-five undergraduate students, representing a variety of majors from a Midwestern university volunteered for this study in exchange for extra-credit points toward a course grade. The vast majority of respondents were female (95%), Caucasian or European-American (84%), and between the ages of 20 and 23 (81%). Participants were directed to a website with which they were unfamiliar to look for a gift for their families and relatives. Once they found their desired products, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire. It was found that trusting intentions were positively predicted by two dimensions of trusting beliefs: benevolence/integrity and ability. There was a positive relationship between institution-based trust and trusting beliefs. Customers who perceived positive situational normality regarding activities on the Internet had positive trusting beliefs in the e-tailer. Perceived site quality positively predicted perceptions of both the benevolence/integrity and the ability of the e-tailer. A significantly positive relationship between perceived site quality and trusting intentions was found. Thus, customers who perceived high website quality had positive trusting intentions. While the Internet gives gifters the opportunity to research a number of new gift sites easily, lesser-known e-tailers face the challenge of showing trustworthiness to...

신탁의 경제적 분석

이계정 법조협회 2020 법조 Vol.69 No.4

The structures of the law of trusts can be divided into two kinds of structure, interior and external. The interior structure is related to the relationships among the parties of the trust including beneficiary and how to control the power of the trustee. The external structure is mainly related to the insolvency protection of the trust estate and the rescission right, entitling the beneficiary to rescind the transaction between the trustee and the third party in a case where the transaction has been proved to breach the trust purpose. This article made an economic analysis on the law of trusts by looking into the interior structure and the external structure and the conclusion can be summarized as follows: Firstly, the law of trusts developed the regime of the fiduciary duty to mitigate the agency cost. In addition, disgorgement of profits can be said to be economically efficient means to discourage the trustee from committing wrongdoing by internalizing an externality. The trustee’s duty to inform and the minimization of the trustee’s discretionary powers can be evaluated as strategies to lessen the agency cost. Secondly, according to the Coase theorem the minimization of the transaction cost should be foremostly considered to achieve efficiency in establishing the legal principle and policy. The law of trusts established the scheme to reduce the transaction cost by incorporating the regime of the fiduciary duty into the contract and prescribing the default rules that people would have been negotiated if the costs of negotiating at arm’s length for every contingency were sufficiently low. Additionally, no-further-inquiry rule and the rule of the presumption can be helpful for lessening the decision cost. Thirdly, the insolvency protection of the trust estate and the separateness of the trust estate can be economically justified given that when the third made a contract with the trustee not in his fiduciary capacity but in his individual capacity, the third can be considered as the cheapest cost avoider in comparison to the beneficiary. As Calabresi mentioned, the inalienability rule can be justified when the paternalism is applied. The rescission right is one of the examples of the inalienability rule and economically justified since the paternalism is emphasized for the protection of the beneficiary exposed to a special vulnerability in the law of trusts. Lastly, it is desirable from the perspective of the economics that the trustee should not be personally liable on contracts properly entered into in his fiduciary capacity in the course of administration of the trust estate. Therefore, the Korean trust code stating that the trustee is also personally liable on contracts properly entered into in his fiduciary capacity should be revised for improving the utility of the trust. This paper also made an economic analysis on the limited liability trust under which the trustee shall be responsible for the debts belonging to the trust estate only by the trust estate. 본 논문에서는 신탁의 기본구조를 내부적 관계와 외부적 관계로 나누어 경제적 분석을 시도하여 신탁이 어떻게 효율을 달성하고 있는지를 논하였는데, 그 내용을 요약하면 다음과 같다. 우선 신탁이 대리비용의 문제를 해결하기 위해 수탁자에게 매우 엄격한 의무인 신인의무를 부과하고 있다는 점을 논하였다. 아울러 수탁자에게 이득토출책임을 부과하고 있는데, 외부효과를 내부화하고 수탁자로 하여금 위법행위를 할 유인을 제거하기 위한 제도라는 점에서 이득토출책임이 법경제학적으로 정당화된다는 점을 논증하였다. 수탁자에 대한 정보제공의무 부과, 수탁자의 권한 축소도 대리비용을 줄이기 위한 방안임을 밝혔다. 다음으로 신탁이 거래비용의 문제를 어떻게 해결하였는지를 코즈의 이론을 바탕으로 살펴보았다. 신탁계약을 체결하면 수탁자의 의무를 포괄적으로 표현한 신인의무가 계약에 편입되게 함으로써 거래비용을 줄이고 있으며, 신인의무는 규칙이 아니라 기준에 해당하여 사법비용이 드는바 신인의무의 내용을 구체화한 하위규범, 법원의 심리의 단순화를 위한 심리배제 원칙 등을 통해 사법비용의 감소를 꾀하고 있다는 점을 설명하였다. 아울러 당사자가 거래비용이 없었다면 합의하였을 사항을 신탁법에 규정함으로써 거래비용의 감소를 꾀하고 있음을 밝혔다. 그 다음으로 수탁자의 고유채권자가 최소비용회피자(the cheapest cost avoider)라는 점을 논증함으로써 신탁재산의 독립성과 도산절연기능이 법경제학적으로 정당화된다는 점을 밝혔다. 한편, 수익자취소권은 양도불가규칙(inalienability rule)이 적용된 것인데 수익자가 가지는 취약한 지위로 인하여 신탁의 법률관계에 후견주의가 적용되므로 양도불가규칙의 적용이 정당화된다는 점을 설명하였다. 끝으로 수탁자의 대외적 책임에 관한 경제적 분석을 시도하였는데, 수탁자가 신탁사무 처리와 관련하여 채무를 부담한 경우에 수탁자가 신탁재산만으로 책임을 지게 하는 것이 효율적이고, 현재의 신탁법과 같이 수탁자가 고유재산으로도 책임을 지게 하는 것은 비효율적이라는 점을 설명하였다. 수탁자가 신탁재산으로만 책임을 지기 위해서는 유한책임신탁을 설정하면 되는바, 유한책임신탁의 의의를 경제적 관점에서 분석하였다.

신탁법상 수탁자의 자율성 강화와 책임제한의 한계- 유한책임신탁의 논의를 중심으로 -

최현태 한양대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.37 No.1

One thing determining relationship of trust is that some liability is given to trustee for securement of a beneficiary right by operating a trust asset. In respect of that trust is management of an asset for benefit of one or more others, trustee has liability to distinguish between trustee’s own asset and trust asset and to administer them separately. Subsequent question related to the liability is liability to a beneficiary and third party. Current Trust Act actualizes scope of trustee’s liability, escaping from the traditional view only emphasizing trustee’s duty in trust relationship. It is ‘Trustee’s Limited-Liability Special Agreement’ that would like to enlarge scope of individual trustee’s work as well as professional trustee company’s work. In this paper we shall see several issues related to trustee’s liability by introduction of Limited-Liability Trust. To deal with these issues, I first address purpose and introduction background of Limited-Liability Trust through concept of Limited-Liability Trust. In addition, I examine thoroughly negative opinions against the introduction of Limited-Liability Trust and sets out to investigate whether the Limited-Liability Trust system meets the enacted purpose or not. Second, I look closely at the at Limited-Liability Trust of other countries developed with active professional trustee companies, especially United States and Japan, through research of law, recent theories, and major cases. Finally, this article takes highly microscopic approach to the question of tort liability for damages under the Limited-Liability Trust. In relation to the question, ⅰ) I review interpretation and application of tort liability under special circumstances, ⅱ) I wish to address the scope of limited liability between trustee and legal parties of the trust after discharge of trustee’s tort liability, and ⅲ) I endeavor to infer and elucidate trustee’s liability limitation for damages through factor analysis such as whether trustee’s tort liability to a third party occurs in the course of transaction between both and whether it only stems from transaction of ordinal trust work. 수탁자가 신탁재산을 운용하여 수익자에게 수익권을 현실화 하는 것을 담보하기 위해 수탁자에게 일정한 의무를 부여하고 있는 것은 신탁관계를 결정짓는 주된 특징들 중 하나이다. 타인을 위한 관리제도라는 신탁의 본질상 수탁자의 의무들 중에서도 수탁자의 고유재산과 신탁재산을 분별하여 관리할 의무가 중요한데, 이 때 발생하는 주요 문제 중 하나가 수탁자의 수익자 및 제3자에 대한 책임이다. 특히 현행 신탁법은 신탁관계에 대한 수탁자의 의무만을 강조하던 전통적인 시각에서 벗어나 수탁자의 책임의 범위에 관한 문제를 현실화하여 전문 수탁회사 등 수탁자의 자율성을 보다 강화하고 그 활동 범위를 확장시킨다는 취지에서 유한책임신탁을 인정하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 그와 같은 유한책임신탁에 있어 수탁자의 제3자에 대한 책임의 범위 및 그 한계라는 측면에서 논의될 수 있는 몇 가지 내용을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 그러기에 우선 ⅰ) 유한책임신탁제도의 개요 및 본질론을 통해 유한책임신탁제도에 대한 개념 및 현행 신탁법 도입 시 비판 의견들을 정리하였다. 그다음으로 ⅱ) 유한책임신탁제도와 관련해서는 특히 비즈니스신탁의 비중이 큰 미국이나 일본의 예가 특히 중요한 것이므로 이들 국가의 유한책임신탁제도 관련 입법례의 주요 내용을 정리 및 검토해보고, 마지막으로 ⅲ) 유한책임신탁에서의 수탁자의 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임 범위에 관한 본 연구의 주제를 위하여 수탁자의 불법행위책임론과 관련하여 특수한 경우의 불법행위책임에 대한 해석론에 있어 분명히 해야 할 점들을 재검토 한 후, 수탁자의 제3자에 대한 손해배상책임 범위 문제에 관한 신탁법 규정(제118조 제1항)을 해석론으로써 살펴보되, 유한책임신탁의 본질과 당사들과의 상관관계 및 긴장관계 등의 요인 분석을 통해 수탁자 책임제한의 한계 범위가 어떠한지에 대하여 고찰하였다.

신탁세제의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구

이전오(Lee, Jeon Oh) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.4

Trust Act Article 22 defines that: No compulsory execution, public auction or procedure for collection of tax delinquency may be made to any trust property. Provided that this shall not apply in case where it is based on any right arising from a cause already existing prior to the execution of trust, or in the course of management of the trust affaires. However, Supreme Court says that tax authorities can not dispose or seize the trust property based on the truster's tax liability because the truster's tax claims is not "already existing right prior to the execution of trust" or a right "occurred in the course of management of the trust affaires." Thus legislative devices to prevent tax avoidance using trust is needed. I suggest two methods for legal enactment. First, Trust Act article 22 may be revised in the direction where the procedure for collection of tax delinquency imposed on trust property itself can be possible. Second, Framework Act on National Tax 41-2 should be newly enacted, where the trustee shall be to the secondary liability in the case when the truster's property is not sufficient to appropriate taxes imposed upon the trust property.

신탁법의 개정방향 -법무부 2009년 신탁법 전면개정안을 중심으로 -

안성포 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.1

The Korean business trust has been used mostly in banks in the form of money trust. The government has been regulating trust businesses in order to protect the rights of the beneficiary. However, recently the deregulation, asset-backed securitization act, collective investment act and real estate investment act in the trust businesses are using trust as a mean for their own advantage. The use of trust is variable. Trusts can be created during a person’s life, usually through a trust instrument, or after a person’s death through a will. As a trust can become more of a flexible instrument to accommodate a variety of purposes, it will be used with even greater frequency compared to other types of structured finance devices. The Trust Act has been in force for more than 4 decades in its original form. Its model is the Japanese Trust Act, which was made in 1922 based on the Indian Trust Act of 1882 and California Civil Code of 1872. Therefore, the Korean Trust Act has been criticized as outdated and ineffective to deal with modern economic environment. In 2009 Ministry of Justice has been working on the revision of the Korean Trust Act. This article is written based on the draft prepared by the Trust Act Reform Committee of the Ministry of Justice. Chapter I of this article explains the actual condition of trust business in Korea and the necessity for the Trust Act reformation. In chapter Ⅱ this article presents the basic direction for the revision of the Trust Act. It is to create a comprehensive Trust Act that includes civil trust and business trust, and possibly a default rule. Chapter III introduces a number of important revisions including the following:(i) Enlargement of the autonomy of related Parties and General Provisions (ii) Maintenance of regulations regarding the trust property (iii) Reality of the duties and rights of the trustee (iv) Vitalization and modernization of the beneficiary's interests (v) Refine and diversify regulations regarding the modification and the termination of the trust, the introduction of division and merger of trusts (vi) Introduction of the Limited Liability Trusts etc. The article ends by describing the effect of the revisions made for trust institutions.

신뢰와 원자력 수용성

왕재선 ( Jaesun Wang ) 한국정책학회 2013 한국정책학회보 Vol.22 No.3

This study analyzed impact of types of trust which ordinary people have in KHNP on acceptance of nuclear energy policy. Through review of existing researches, I classified four types of trust such as cognitive trust on agency, affective trust on agency, cognitive trust on employee, and affective trust on employee. This study analyzed relative influence of these types of trust on acceptance of nuclear energy policy. And acceptances of nuclear energy are classified into three indicators by solidity of policy. Results are as follows. Trust is important factor on acceptance of nuclear energy policy. The public perceived each type of trust, discriminately. This result emphasize that we have to considerate multi-dimensional aspects of trust. The weakest policy is influenced by cognitive trust on agency, while the strongest policy is impacted by affective trust on employee. This result means that we should consider discriminate strategy to improve of trust by contents and impact on the public of policy.