미국의 강력한 소비자의 권리 어디에서 오는가?

가정준(Ka Jung Joon) 한국비교사법학회 2016 比較私法 Vol.23 No.3

미국내에서 발생한 소위 ‘디젤게이트’ 사건이 처리되는 과정을 보면 미국의 소비자가 얼마나 강력한 권리를 갖고 있는지 확인할 수 있었다. 이 과정을 통해 미국의 소비자는 어떻게 그렇게 강력한 권리를 갖게 되었는지 본 논문을 통해 살펴보고자 한다. 권리는 입법과 사법활동을 통해 새롭게 형성되거나 진화되는데 미국내 소비자 권리가 어떻게 발전되었는지를 제도적 측면에서 살펴보고 이를 우리법과 비교해 본다면 시장에서 소비자들의 위상을 간접적으로 알 수 있을 것이라고 생각한다. 입법활동은 궁극적으로 시장의 저해요소들을 미리 발견하거나 예상하여 시장에서 발생하지 않도록 적극적으로 대처하도록 하는 예방적인 측면을 대부분 가지고 있다. 사법부는 시장의 기능을 저해하는 활동들인 부당거래행위, 불법행위, 독과점들이 발생하면 이로 인해 피해를 입은 피해자들이 민사소송을 통해 사후적으로 구제받도록 함으로써 시장이 작동되지 않거나 효율적이지 않아 발생하게 되는 문제점들을 사후적으로 해결하는 역할을 한다. 사업자와 관련한 소비자 문제를 해결하기 위한 정치과정은 정치과정에 대한 관심도와 참여도가 상대적으로 매우 높은 사업자로 인하여 사업자에게 유리한 정치적 결과물 또는 소비자에게 이익이 되지 못하는 정치적 결과물을 생성할 가능성이 높다는 것이다. 사업자와 소비자간 계약체결에 있어서의 ‘정보의 비대칭성’과 사업자의 불법행위로 인해 소비자에게 비계약적 손해가 발생하는 경우 손해의 배상이 완전히 이루지 못하게 되는 ‘외부성’은 일종의 시장의 실패로 정치과정을 통해 치유 · 보완되기 어렵다는 것이 바로 소비자 문제에 있어 정치과정의 한계라고 할 수 있다. 이를 치유하기 위하여 사업자의 불공정한 행위에 대하여 정치적으로 중립적인 방법으로 처리할 수 있도록 정치적 중립기구인 ‘연방공정거래위원회’를 설립하였다. 미국 민사재판에서 가해자의 불법행위를 원인으로 피해자에게 손해가 발생한 경우 다른 나라보다 정신적 고통에 대한 손해배상을 놀랍도록 크게 인정하는 이유는 그 손해배상액을 결정하는 자가 판사가 아닌 배심원이기 때문이라고 할 수 있다. 법원에서 판사는 원고와 피고사이에서 재판진행과 관련하여 중립적인 역할을 하고 ‘배심원’은 손해배상액을 결정하는 역할을 한다. 무작위로 선출된 배심원단은 정치적 관점에서 보면 미국내 정치적 소수가 아닌 정치적 다수를 대표한다고 할 수 있다. 법원에서 가해자의 불법행위책임이 인정되면 배심원은 이로 인해 발생한 손실에 대한 손해배상액을 결정하는데 마치 정치적 다수를 대표하는 소비자들이 그 손해배상액을 결정함으로써 다른 나라와 비교할 수 없는 액수의 정신적 손해배상금을 목격하게 된다. 특히 이러한 작용은 사법부가 사후적 구제 방법을 통해 불법행위를 예방하는 역할을 강력하게 하게 되었다. The laws for consumer rights and consumer protection in the U.S. provide a way for individuals to overcome the unfair or deceptive acts or practices by business. It is the most likely that the business parly takes advantage of consumer s lack of information or bargaining power to seek more profits. These laws at the federal and state level are designed to enhance consumer s rights. They are enforced by government agencies. offices of attorneys general, and through individual and class action lawsuits filed by victims. In particular. independent government agencies with the rule-making authority such as Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) are established to ensure the consumer rights. Recently, one settlement with the United States and the State of California. and the other settlement with the U.S. FTC. German automaker Volkswagen AG and related entities have agreed to spend up to $14.7 billion to settle allegations of cheating emissions tests and deceiving customers. Volkswagen will pay up to $10.03 billion to compensate consumers under the program. The settlements resolve claims by the FTC that Volkswagen violated the FTC Act through the deceptive and unfair advertising and sale of ils clean diesel vehicles. In addition, Volkswagen will spend $4.7 billion to mitigate the pollution from these cars and invest in green vehicle technology. The settlements partially resolve allegations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). as well as the California Attorney General s Office and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the Clean Air Act, California Health and Safety Code. and California s Unfair Competition Laws, relating to the vehicles use of defeat devices to cheat emissions tests. In the U.S., FTC and EPA have played a primary role in compensating the damages of consumers caused by unfair contracts. In Korea. it is unlikely that they will play their role to protect damaged consumers because of no statute to exercise their power for consumers. Since 1997, the number of businesses has sold the huge number of humidifier sterilizer in Korea. Toxic humidifier disinfectant took the lives of at least 134 people in Korea over a decade. most of whom were newborn babies. their mothers. or pregnant women. Other institution believes that more than 3,700 people have been injured and fatally injured. The businesses have been negligent in finding the risk of humidifier disinfectant that can be inhaled by their users. Some companies are even known to have intentionally ignored the fact on its product s toxicity. The damage award is relatively limited in Korean court when the injury occurs. This is because the pain and suffering damages is limited into 100 million won based on the bureaucratic internal decision among administrative judges. The damage award is huge in the U.S, court if lhe pain and suffering damages is severe. The research data says that the pain and suffering damages in the U.S. is 20 times more than one in Korea. This is because of different adjudicative process between in the U.S. and Korea. Jury trial makes huge difference in estimating the pain and suffering damages. The consumers in the U.S, are more likely to obtain legal protection than ones in other countries because of independent administrative agencies and jury trial. Independent administrative agencies plays their role to enhance the function of market. resulting in favoring consumers. The jury trial makes it more likely that the injurers are more likely to be compensated. From Diesel Gate and Poisonous Gate it is known that Korean consumers have relatively weak legal right in compensating their damages caused by unfair contract and tortious act.

제조물책임법과 제조물책임 - 법경제학적 비교 고찰을 중심으로 -

가정준(Ka Jung-Joon) 한국재산법학회 2005 재산법연구 Vol.22 No.1

The adjudicative process is a comparatively better institution than other institutional processes for improving product safety. The shifted distribution and the evenhandedness of institutional actors are two main reasons for the comparative advantages of the adjudicative process associated with product safety. First, the shifted distribution can be defined as the situation in which a skewed distribution in one institutional process converts into a uniform high distribution in another institutional process. The shifted distribution occurs in the context of product safety when the skewed distribution in political process converts into the uniform high distribution in the adjudicative process. This shifted distribution can occur because the political performs differently from the adjudicative process on the same issues. The political process tends to resolve upcoming concerns, while the adjudicative process tends to correct previous matters. The retrospective focus on private damage action in the courts contrasts with the prospective focus on regulations concerning safety issues. Parties with potential interests tend to participate in the political process, while parties with actual interests tend to participate in the adjudicative process. Because of the prospective aspect of political outcomes and the retrospective aspect of adjudicative outcomes, in the context of product safety, a skewed distribution in the political process turns into a uniformly high distribution in the adjudicative process. As a general matter, all institutional processes in the uniform high distribution are most likely to be responsive while all institutional processes in the skewed distribution tend to be unilateral in behavior or nonresponsive. In other words, the adjudicative process under the uniform high distribution is likely to produce better institutional outcomes than that under skewed distribution, because of more balanced participation on both sides. In this sense, the adjudicative process under the uniform high distribution has advantages over the other institutional processes under the skewed distribution in performing the improvement of product safety. Second, judicial actors, who are relatively independent of the general population and special interest groups, make the refinement of adjudicative participation and its effect on institutional outcomes more likely than do other institutional actors. Since the judicial system and procedures make it likely that only participants with high per capita stakes are able to have adjudicative participation, such active participation and influence on both sides is unlikely to become distorted. The independence of judicial actors from adjudicative participants is likely to produce evenhanded outcomes by precluding the negative effects of more active participants in a uniformly high distribution. In this sense, the adjudicative process is likely to produce the evenhanded adjudicative outcomes related to product safety. On the other hand, the dependence of institutional actors within the political process makes likely the production of distorted institutional outcomes along with unbalanced participation between potential injurers and victims. The political participants under the skewed distribution are likely to produce a biased influence toward institutional actors. In particular, because of the dependence of political actors on the general population and interest groups, political actors are unlikely to overcome the influence of more active participants. The dependence of institutional actors and unbalanced participation are likely to justify the distorted outcomes against potential victims in the context of product safety. Even the contents of Product Liability Act in Korea suggest that it is likely to create illusory outcomes for the majority. Therefore, it is hard to expect improvement of product safety to occur through political process. Consequently, the adjudicative process with p

美國 不法行爲法 발전의 이론적 고찰

가정준(Jung-Joon Ka) 한국비교사법학회 2005 비교사법 Vol.12 No.1

American tort law is quite different from that of Korea, even though they both have a same ancestor, namely Roman law. This paper will focus on giving you a reason why demarcation between intent and negligence is regarded so essential in American tort law unlike in Korean tort law. It is assumed that this is due to social and theoretical differences existing between these two legal systems and in order to understand the reason why such differences exist, we must thoroughly look at historical and philosophical backgrounds of American tort law. It must be noted, however, that it is almost impossible to wholly cover them, as it is beyond the scope of this article. Thus, I will just concentrate on development of tort liabilities by examining philosophical backgrounds of the United States. American tort law has its origin in old English common law. In England, intentional liability and absolute liability used to constitute tort law, but abandonment of the writ system and emergence of negligent liability in the 19th century had a substantial effect on the scope of tort liabilities. The abandonment of the writ system expanded the scope of tort liability as a whole and the emergence of negligent liability made absolute liability a less important factor in determining one’s tortious liability. In particular, the emergence of negligent liability made tort law an independent branch of law. In the 19th century, American tort law began to depart from that of England, because many American legal scholars had realized that English cases had become incapable of being decisive precedents although their strong effects on various American cases. Due to the industrial revolution, the social and economic situations in England were quite different from those of the United States. English judiciary and politicians were faced by some serious problems caused as a result of industrialization and urbanization in the 19th century. The courts imposed strict liabilities on industrials if they were held responsible for neglecting or causing certain types of injuries related with nonnatural accident and industrialization. It was not easy to adopt such liabilities rigidly in the American legal system because of different economic and social environments from those of England. Furthermore, since the unbalanced.formation of states made each state courts to have different points of view on strict liability, each state accepted and recognized strict liability at different time as a result. Finally, major states allowed strict liability in the middle of the 20th century. From the middle of the 20th century, American courts have expanded the scope of strict liability including product liability. Strict liability has become an independent area in tort law and played a significant role in achieving the social goal of industrial safety. American courts have differently developed the branches of tort liability with different rationales. American tort law consists of three independent tort liabilities: intentional liability, negligent liability, and strict liability with product liability. On the other hand, Korean tort law has developed tort liability with one rational that no tort liability is imposed without one’s fault or faults. Korean tort law has one tort liability, negligent liability including intentional liability. Korean courts have sought special statutes to impose strict liability rather than judicial development. This is why Korean tort law has operated differently from American tort law.

‘징벌적 손해배상제도’의 변형과 정착 : 오해와 진실을 바탕으로

가정준(Ka, Jung-Joon) 한국재산법학회 2021 재산법연구 Vol.38 No.1

불공정한 거래행위와 불법행위가 원인으로 발생한 결과는 공정하지 않을 뿐만 아니라 정의롭지도 못하다. 불공정성을 회복하기 위한 방법은 이러한 결과가 발생하기 이전의 상태로 원상회복 되도록 만드는 것으로 이것은 책임법의 중요한 역할 중 하나이다. 불공정한 거래행위와 불법행위로 인한 손해가 전보되면 불공정한 상태가 공정한 상태로 회복될 수 있다. 문제는 그 손해를 어떻게 측정하고 어느 정도로 배상해야 하는 것이 사회적으로 타당한지 알기 어렵다는 것이다. 각국의 법체계는 손해배상법을 통해 원리를 세우고 실제 사건에 적용함으로써 불공정성을 치유하고 있다. 이러한 치유의 과정에도 불구하고 불공정성이 해소되지 못한다면 이는 정의에 부합되지 못한다고 한다. 손해배상법을 통해 그 불공정성을 치유하더라도 정의롭지 못한 상태가 되는 경우는 이와 유사한 불공정한 거래행위와 불법행위가 반복되는 것의 목격이다. 즉 손해배상법이 피해자의 손해를 충분히 전보하지 못해 예방적 효과를 달성하지 못하는 경우이다. 예방적 효과를 향상시키기 위한 가장 쉬운 방법은 손해배상액을 높이는 것이다. 대한민국은 최근 10년간 개별 입법을 통해 이를 높이는 노력을 경주해 왔다. 최근에는 상법 개정을 통해 특히 불공정한 거래행위로 인한 손해를 5배까지 배상할 수 있는 입법이 제안되었다. 일반적으로 불공정한 거래행위는 광범위한 범위(Q1)에서 다양한 거래(n1)에서 발생하기에 시장과 시장질서에 매우 부정적 영향을 발생시키지만, 피해자 개인별로 발생한 손해(L1)는 크지 않다. 반면, 불법행위는 상대적으로 발생 범위(Q2)와 종류(n2)가 크거나 다양하지 않지만 피해자 개인별로 발생한 손해(L2)는 매우 크다. 불공정한 거래행위를 치유하기 좋은 방법은 개별적인 방법보다는 집단적인 방법이, 불법행위는 개별적인 방법이 효율적이다. 불공정한 거래행위로 발생한 피해를 원상회복하는 방법은 그것으로 인해 발생한 손해를 배상하는 방법과 피해자의 계약해제권를 쉽게 인정해 주는 방법이 있을 수 있으며 현행 법률은 계약해제권을 강화함으로써 그 불공정성을 해소하는 것에 집중해야 할 것이다. 이러한 좀 더 근원적인 방법을 통해 불공정한 거래행위를 공정하게 만드는 것이 어려운 상황속에서, 손해배상액을 상향조정하는 방향으로 잡은 것은 충분히 이해되나 그것이 얼마나 효과적인지에 대해 좀 더 면밀한 대비가 필요하다고 본다. 불법행위로 발생한 피해를 원상회복하는 방법은 상대적으로 피해자의 손해를 전보해 주는 방법 이외에는 찾기 어렵다. 오히려 손해를 산정함에 있어 입법적으로 3배 및 5배 배상하는 방법은 우리나라 불법행위책임에 관한 현실에서 매우 타당할 것이다. 현재 대한민국에서 추진하고 있는 소위 ‘징벌적 손해배상’을 위한 입법은 불법행위 영역에서 예방적 효과를 극대화하기 위해 초점이 맞추어져지지 않고, 불공정한 거래행위와 관련한 분야에서 주로 행해지고 있음을 안타깝게 생각한다. 특히 세월호 사건 보다 더 많은 사망자를 발생시킨 ‘가습기살균제’ 사건과 같은 불법행위 영역이야말로 더 강력한 ‘징벌적 손해배상’제도가 도입되어야 하는 부분임에도 불구하고 이에 대한 입법부의 태도는 거의 손을 놓고 있다고 하더라도 과언이 아니다. 환경산업기술원의 가습기살균제 피해지원 종합포털에 따르면, 2011년 영유아 등에게서 ‘가습기살균제 사망사건’이 발생한 후 현재까지 신청·접수된 피해자는 모두 6,707명으로 이 중 사망자는 1,517명으로 집계됐다. 이원광, 사망자 1517명…‘가습기특별법’ 기다렸지만, 머니투데이 (2020.1. 10) https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2020011014427612630 불공정한 거래행위에서 공정성을 회복시키는 좀 더 효율적인 방법을 미국의 ‘징벌적 손해배상’의 적용범위와 역할을 고찰함으로써 우리나라 사법부와 입법부가 고민할 것이 무엇인지를 제언하고자 한다. The outcomes from unfair transactions and torts must be not only unfair and but also unjust. One of the most important roles for legal compensation is to restore unfairness outcomes into the pre-occurrence state. If the losses from unfair transactions and torts are transferred by fully compensating victims, the unfair state may be restored to the fair state. The question is how to measure the damage and how much to compensate. Each country s legal system play an important role by establishing legal principles applying them to actual cases. Despite this process, if unfairness is not resolved, it is said to be injustice. Even if the unfairness is cured through the liability act, it is often witnessed that similar outcomes from unfair transactions and torts are repeated. In other words, the liability law is unlikely to achieve preventive effects because it may not sufficiently restore the stage of victims. The easiest way to improve preventive effects is to increase the damage awards. The legislature in Korea has made efforts to increase by individual legislation for the past decade. Recently, legislation has been proposed to compensate up to five times for damages, especially due to unfair transactions. In general, unfair transactions occur in a varied range of transactions (n1), which have a very negative impact(Q1) on the market, but the damage (L1) caused by each victim is not significant. Illegal activities are relatively large in scope (Q2) and type (n2), but the damage (L2) caused by each victim is very significant. The better way to correct unfair trnadactions is to collectively rather than individual methods, and illegal activities are to be individual methods efficient. There may be ways to recover damages caused by unfair legal activities and easily recognize victims right to terminate contracts, and current laws should focus on resolving unfairness by strengthening their right to terminate contracts. It is relatively hard to find a way to restore the damage caused by illegal activities other than by transferring the victim s damage. Three times and five times compensation in calculating the damage would be very reasonable in the reality of our country s liability for illegal activities. It is regrettable that the so-called ‘punitive damages’ legislation currently being pushed in Korea is mainly carried out in areas related to unfair transactions, even though it should be focused on the area of illegal activities for preventive roles. It is no exaggeration to say that the legislature s attitude toward it is almost indifferent, especially in areas of illegality, such as the Humidifier Sterilizer, which caused more deaths than the Ferry Sewol case, even though a stronger punitive damages system needs to be introduced. I would like to suggest the scope and role of the ‘punitive damages’ in Korea by researching the punitive damages in the U.S. and to consider what the Korean judiciary and legislature should do for justice.

신탁재산에 대한 수탁자와 수익자의 권리 -DCFR 신탁법상을 중심으로-

가정준 ( Ka Jung-joon ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2013 외법논집 Vol.37 No.3

This article has focused on how we understand DCFR and trusts law. This article introduces DCFR Book X and compares with Korean newly amended trust law based on American one. Main difference between DCFR and Korean trust law may come from the characteristics on the right of beneficiary although the fiduciary duties of trustee are similar to each other. The parties for creating and managing trusts are truster, trustee, and beneficiary. The truster is a person who constitutes or intends to constitute a trust by juridical act. The trustee is the person in whom the trust fund becomes or remains vested when the trust is created. The beneficiary is a person who, according to the trust terms, has either a right to benefit or eligibility for benefit from the trust fund. The trustee plays a main role to keep obligations arising from trust while the beneficiary is a main party in enjoying the trustee’s obligations. A trustee who is liable under liability of trustee to reinstate the trust fund is also obliged to compensate a beneficiary who, despite reinstatement of the trust fund, does not obtain a benefit to which that beneficiary was entitled or, if there had been no failure of performance, would have been entitled under the trust terms. In particular under DCFR, where a trustee transfers a trust asset to another and the transfer is not in accordance with the terms of the trust, the transferee takes the asset subject to the trust if the transfer is gratuitous or the transferee knows or could reasonably be expected to know that the transfer is by a trustee and is not in accordance with the terms of the trust. A transferee has a corresponding right to a return of any benefit conferred in exchange. On the other hand, in this situation, a beneficiary in Korea law is entitled to the trust asset by making the transaction between the trustee and the transferee void. I believe that DCFR considers the right of beneficiary on trust asset a proprietary right while Korean trust law does it a contractual right against a trustee. In order to protect her right on the trust asset, Korean law allows the beneficiary to avoid the transaction between the trustee and the transferee as the right to avoid by a creditor.

사회적 비용을 감소하기 위한 입법과 Incentive의 활용 -새로운 패러다임 하에서의 담배꽁초회수법 제정 제안-

가정준 ( Jung Joon Ka ) 한국법정책학회 2013 법과 정책연구 Vol.13 No.3

경제적 유인을 통한 특정 목적을 달성하기 위한 입법 방법은 단속과 처벌에 익숙한 법문화에서는 그 패러다임의 변화를 받아들이기는 쉽지 않을 것이다. 단속과 처벌이 따르는 법률들을 제정할 당시 이들이 가지고 있는 치명적 내재적 약점인 제재비용인 사회적 비용의 증가를 입법자들이 얼마나 고려하는 지 궁금하다. 이러한 ‘부정적 유인’을 통한 제재는 그 단속비용이 투여되면 그 효과가 바로 보이기 때문에 많은 경우 입법자들은 이를 선호하는 것 같다. 하지만 지속적 단속비용이 투여되지 않으면 용두사미가 되는 것이 ‘부정적 유인’의 한계이기도 하다. 또한 ‘부정적 유인’에 투여되는 사회적 비용에 비해 얻게 되는 효과가 적은 분야에 이러한 방법을 사용하고 있는 것은 사회적 비효율성을 보여주는 예가 될 수도 있다. 이에 비해 ‘긍정적 유인’을 통한 입법은 그 설계와 제정 과정이 쉽지 않지만 적은 사회적 비용을 투하하여 지속적인 효과를 얻을 수 있는 장점이 있다. ‘담배꽁초회수법’은 ‘긍정적 유인’의 방식을 통한 입법으로 이를 통해 얻게 되는 이익과 효과를 고려하여 제안을 하였다. 제안된 법안이 입법으로 성사 여부를 떠나 ‘부정적 유인’에 익숙한 우리나라 현실의 입법 방법을 보다 효과적인 ‘긍정적 유인’을 통한 입법 방법을 법경제학적 측면에서 제시함으로써 보다 효과적이고 효율적인 법제정을 위한 기초가 되고자 본 논문을 작성하여 보았다. I totally agree with Judge Posner`s statement that as rational maximizers people are likely to response to incentive in somehow. I believe that this incentive can be classified into positive and negative incentive in lawmaking and its enforcement. Most of time lawmakers have used negative incentive when they propose drafts such as fine, penalty, and punishment. It is not difficult to find out the effectiveness of these kinds laws when a government puts significant resources into negative incentive-oriented laws. The social resources are supposed to become significant and continuous when such outcomes are expected. Governmental budget, like social resources, are limited and used according various social demands. Without significant and continuous supports, it is not easy to expect that such laws and their enforcement are effective. Sometimes, lawmakers pass negative incentive-oriented law without considering how to assign a national budget. Such law is likely to become inefficient because the significant amount of social resource is required, but its outcomes are insignificant. Likewise, positive incentive-oriented laws such as subsidy and supports require significant amount of social resources, but aim with targeted purpose and groups. It is not easy to find out such positive incentive-oriented laws because of hardships in making and allocating. However, its efficiency is relatively strong despite narrowed effectiveness in targeted areas. I have suggested the way to decrease social costs in lawmaking by applying incentive, in particular Draft for Cigarette Butts Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. If we can find the way to reduce our wastes in particular by recycling cigarette butts, many positive outcomes are expected such as reducing fires by mistakes, environmental contamination into rivers and sea, social costs to enforce no littering. In addition, I believe that it is the time to think of a new way in drafting laws by using more positive incentives.

美國法上 理事의 責任과 義務 - Fiduciary Duty를 중심으로 : 美國法上 理事의 責任과 義務

賈政埈(Jung-Joon Ka) 한국비교사법학회 2007 비교사법 Vol.14 No.1

This paper has mainly examined the fiduciary duties. Since I am not an expert of commercial law, it is not comfortable to do my research under the duties of director. However, everybody has claimed that the fiduciary duties of director have originated from ones of trustee. It has added that even the fiduciary duties of director in Korean law come from the ones of trustee in common law. Nevertheless, it is not easy to find the Korean articles on the fiduciary duties of trustee in common law. This is the main reason why I began to research this topic and introduce this article to this Law Review. This paper consists of five chapters. First and last one are the introduction and conclusion, respectively. Second one explored the fiduciary duties of trustee in trust. Third one studied the duties of director in commercial law. Fourth one was about the comparison of fiduciary duties between a trustee and director in the point of view under law and economics. In the second chapter, I introduced the traditional fiduciary duties of trustee. These duties are mainly classified into the duties to res and beneficiaries. The duty to res is more detailed with the followings; the duty collect in the assets, the duty to invest, the duty to distribute, the duty to maintain equality, and the duty to provide accounts and information. The trustee is required to perform these kinds of duties with utmost diligent. On the other hand, the duty to beneficiaries is summarized as the duty to manage trust only for beneficiaries. It is so called the duty of loyalty. This duty of loyalty requires a trustee to do his or her duty more than with good faith and reasonable standard. In the third chapter, I explained the duties of directors based on the fiduciary duties of trustee. Like the duties of trustee, the ones of director are summarized into the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. Especially, they are called fiduciary duties of director. They are required to perform these duties with the care of an ordinarily prudent person and good faith. However, it is likely that the standards of director to do these duties are lower than those of trustee. In the fourth chapter, I tried to show the differences of fiduciary duty between trustee and director in the point of view under law and economics. Mainly, such differences are explained with the theory for the asymmetry of information. This theory tells a lot of reasons for such differences. It is unlikely to assume an asymmetry of information under the relationship between directors and shareholders and the structure of the corporation. On the other hand, it is likely to assume the asymmetry of information under the relationship between trustees and beneficiaries and the structure of trusts. The likelihood for the asymmetric information requires trustees to have a higher standard for fiduciary duties than directors. In conclusion, it is more necessary to do research for the fiduciary duties of trustees because of enormous changes in using trusts. Recently, many people have used trusts as the means of investment rather than the means of management and inheritance. In such these circumstances, the fiduciary duties of trustees should be redefined.

‘제3자의 변제’에 관한 효용성 분석 및 비교법적 고찰

가정준(Ka Jung Joon) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.1

‘제3자의 변제’는 계약당사자가 아닌 제3자가 채무자의 채무를 채권자에게 이행하여 그 채무를 소멸시키는 행위이다. ‘제3자의 변제’로 삼당사자들에게 미치는 법적 효력을 채무자의 채무가 절대적으로 그리고 상대적으로 소멸하는 경우를 구분하여 경제적 효용성을 분석해 보았다. ‘제3자의 변제’에 대한 경제적 효용성 분석의 초점은 ‘제3자의 변제’ 자체에 대한 경제적 효용성이 아닌 ‘제3자의 변제’ 이후 채권자, 채무자, 그리고 제3자 모두에게 총량적으로 발생하는 경제적 효용성이다. 효용성 분석에서 ‘제3자의 변제’를 폭 넓게 인정해 주면 줄수록 그리고 채무자에 대한 제3자의 구상권을 제한하면 할수록 그 효용성은 높아짐을 알 수 있었다. 대륙법은 채권자에 대한 ‘제3자의 변제’가 명시적으로 증여의 의사표시를 하거나 증여로 볼 수 있는 경우가 아니면 제3자에게 일종의 권리를 부여하려고 노력하는 것 같다. 특히 우리 민법이 이에 대해 다른 대륙법 체계의 국가보다 적극적인 것으로 보인다. 반면 영미법은 채권자에 대한 ‘제3자의 변제’가 법적인 원인으로 행해진 경우에만 제3자에게 일종의 권리를 부여하고 있다는 점은 ‘제3자의 변제’에 대한 기본적 시각 차이이다. 반대로 영미법은 이행관계가 없는 ‘제3자의 변제’를 일종의 증여로 보고 제3자와 채권자 사이뿐만 아니라 제3자와 채무자 사이 에서도 아무런 법률관계가 존재하지 않게 된다. 민법은 아무런 법률관계가 없는 자가 타인을 위해 사무관리를 하는 것을 허용하고 사무관리를 함으로 발생한 비용까지 보전할 수 있도록 규정하고 있는데 그 주된 이유는 사무관리가 사회적으로 경제적 효율성을 높여주기 때문이라고 생각한다. 심지어 민법은 다른 대안으로 부당이득반환청구를 통해 이 문제를 처리하려고 하는 것 같다. 비교법적으로 ‘제3자의 변제’에 관하여 한국과 일본 민법이 제3자의 이익을 중심으로 한 고전적 모습을 띈다고 할 수 있다. 동남아시아 국가들 특히 일본 민법의 영향을 받은 국가에서는 ‘제3자의 변제’로 인한 채무자에 대한 구상권을 폭 넓게 인정하고 있다. 이에 반하여 ‘제3자의 변제’에 관한 대만 민법은 common law의 영향을 받은 국가들의 계약법과 유사하다. 즉, 제3자가 채무자에게 구상권을 취득할 수 경우는 제3자와 채무자 사이의 ‘이해관계’로 제한하면서 제3자의 구상권 취득이 상대적으로 좁아지게 되었다. 인도네시아와 말레이시아 민법도 대만민법과 같은 태도를 취하고 있다. 더욱이 DCFR은 ‘제3자의 변제’를 원칙적으로 누구에게나 허용하고 단지 채무자에 대한 제3자의 구상권은 대만 민법과 같이 제한하고 있다. ‘제3자의 변제’와 관련한 민법 개정안에서 이러한 경제학적 분석을 바탕과 비교법 연구를 통해 새로운 안을 제시하였는지에 대해 의심스럽다. 개인적으로 법률상 원인이 없거나 실질적 이해관계가 없는 자의 변제에 대한 법률효과인 ‘상대적 소멸’을 인정하려는 우리 법체계와 그것을 확대해석하려는 우리의 학계에 대해 새로운 분석을 통해 새롭게 이 문제를 접근해 볼 것을 권해 본다. This article has focused on the subject for the performance by the third party based on the comparative studies of Asian countries. In most of countries, a contract to do something, may not be performed by a third party if this is contrary to the wishes of the creditor who has an interest in the act being committed by the debtor himself. Otherwise, an obligation may be performed by a third party as well as by the obligor. If the purpose of the obligation cannot be achieved by the performance of a third party, the third party may not perform the obligation unless the obligee consents. The obligor and the obligee may agree not to allow performance by a third party. A person who has procured a discharge through his own performance or other expenditure and thereby obtains the right to demand indemnification from the obligor may exercise via subrogation the claim held by the obligee and all other rights associated therewith. A contract can be fulfilled by any one individual who has an interest therein, such as a co-debtor or a guarantor. A contract may also be fulfilled by a third party who does not have any interest in it, provided that the third party acts on behalf of and for the purpose of releasing the debtor, or, if he acts on his own behalf, he shall not assume the rights of the creditor. When a promisee accepts performance of the promise from a third person, he cannot afterwards enforce it against the promisor. Lastly, I have compared the Principle of Asian Contract Law with Draft Common Frame of Reference. Taiwan Civil Code and Malaysian Contract Law are similar in this subject, which means that they seem similar to common law. Cambodian and Vietnamese Civil Code are similar to Japanese Civil Code. Especially, Korean Civil Code is very similar to Japanese Civil Code. I would like to encourage for the academy of Korean contract law to easily allow the third party to perform instead of the obligor. In fact, Korean Civil Code is a little strict against the third party to effectively perform the contract because of some requirements. Then, Korean Civil Code and contract law are the most likely to allow the third party, who performs the contract without legal or actual interest, to obtain the right for redemption against the obligor. I believe that it is very different from common law and DCFR. Especially, common law has not allowed the third party to obtain the right for redemption unless he or she has legal interest to perform. Neutrally, I have economically analyzed which standard is more useful between the case to allow it or not. I hope that this analysis will be helpful for works in the Amendment of Korean Civil Code.

변호사(辯護士) 선임계약(選任契約)의 고찰

가정준 ( Ka Jung-joon ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2005 외법논집 Vol.18 No.-

An agreement on the attorneys fee is a subject of contractual relationship between the attorney and his or her client. There are three forms of attorneys fee agreement and its classification depends on how the client pays for the legal service his or her attorney has performed. Generally, attorneys fee is classified into fixed fee, contingency fee, and modified contingency fee. In Korea, modified contingency fee is the most popular form of attorneys fee agreement and it consists of fixed fee and contingency fee. Traditionally, use of contingency fee agreement has been widely criticized because of its unethical nature, although the Korean courts have not ruled that it is a void contract itself. The basic legal aspect of attorneys contract is delegation. However, the legal aspect of attorneys contract made by the contingent fee agreement can be differently classified into undertaking contract if focusing on the accomplishment or winning of legal works. The modified contingency agreement can be classified into either delegation or undertaking contract, depending on the nature of attorneys contract. The important issue involving delegation and undertaking contract is whether the attorney has fiduciary duties in his or her contract. However, such argument is not practical because normally, most contents of the contract are already covered and particularized by the parties involved. The use of contingency fee agreement causes some problems. First of all, it has a negative impact on the traditional role of attorney. An attorney who represents his or her clients is also obliged to play a public role and it is very important for achieving social justice. Many legal scholars have been concerned with this matter while they have also emphasized the negative effects of using contingency fee. However, the contingency fee in legal service market has been commonly used and widespread under the modified contingency fee agreement. Such agreement has been made between attorney and the client without any limitation. The fixed fee agreement also causes several problems. More seriously, most of legal scholars have overlooked these problems from the fixed fee agreement. The nature of relationship between attorney and the client is not equal because of the asymmetry of information. The unequal nature of relationship is likely to render moral hazard by attorney. The problem of moral hazard is unlikely to disappear under the fixed fee agreement. A designed contract preventing moral hazard or solving the asymmetric information is likely to resolve the problems from the fixed fee agreement. The contingent fee agreement is alternative to pass away these problems. However, the nature of the contingent fee agreement has its limits to prevent them. That is why the contingent fee agreement is not allowed in criminal and domestic cases in the United States. In Korea, few legal scholars have argued both problems of fixed fee and contingent fee agreement. That causes contingent fee agreement widespread in most cases with the combination of a fixed fee. Legal scholars should reconsider the effects of attorneys fee on legal service market and clients.

미국계약법의 구조와 이해

가정준(Ka Jung-joon) 한국재산법학회 2007 재산법연구 Vol.23 No.3

  It is not easy to explain the structure of American Contract Law because of different legal worlds. First, the structures of contract law between in common law and civil law are different to each other. Second, historical and theoretical backgrounds for contract laws between in common law and civil law are not the same to each other. Legal scholars between in two different worlds may have made little effort to understand the other world. However, since 1980s, the whole world has begun to unify the law for sale of goods. Its purpose initiated to reduce the transaction costs. The result became into existence as "United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods"(hereafter "CISG"). Korea also participated in this movement in 2005 by approving this treaty in National Assembly. In fact, "CISC" is a result of harmonization between common law and civil law. Therefore, the demand for understanding common law has increased. That is the main reason why I introduced this paper to this Law Review.<BR>  In common law, the most important and unique concept may be "Consideration." The doctrine of consideration may represent the history of contract law in common law. It has originated from "causa" under Roman law. However, it has differently developed to distinguish enforceable promise from unenforceable promises. The independent development for the doctrine of consideration in the United States stimulated the separation from English contract law. The structure of common law for contracts has developed based on litigation rather than substantial law. This structure has mainly focused on the concept to distinguish enforceable contract from unenforceable contract. The concept of "defense" has been used to do this purpose.<BR>  Many kinds of defenses have played a decisive role for defendants to claim that the contract cannot be enforceable in action. They do make contracts unenforceable rather than void. On the other hand, three discharges - impracticability, impossibility, and frustration - render to relieve defendants from their contract duty without the liability from breach of contract. They do not make contract unenforceable, but both party no liable.<BR>  In addition, this paper has examined how plaintiff can be compensated from the breach of contract in action. Mainly, plaintiff can seek for specific performance or damage award. In damage awards, first, in Korea, plaintiff can be compensated based on the evaluation by the expectation damage in the United States. Second, unlike in Korea, the damage can be evaluated with the reliance damage if some other conditions are satisfied in the United States. The reliance damage has played a supplementary role to solve problems from the doctrine of Consideration.<BR>  In conclusion, this paper is not possible to wholly explain the structure of American contract law. Since many scholars has been interested in common law, I hope that this paper helps them to understand the background of American contract law rather than detail contract law.