반응성구조체의 고속충돌에 따른 온도분포 분석

정상현,조수경,배광태,이기봉,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Cho, Soo Gyeong,Bae, Gwang Tae,Lee, Kibong 한국군사과학기술학회 2017 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.20 No.5

The temperature profiles upon high speed impact of reactive structural materials were analyzed. A two color pyrometer, which included high-speed camera, spectral splitter, and band pass filters, was utilized to measure transient temperature profiles during and after reactive metal samples impacted into steel plate with velocities of 1600~1700 m/s. The spatial temperature distribution was analyzed from the ratio of spectral radiances at two different wavelength in infrared zone, i.e. 700 and 900 nm. The measured temperatures were calibrated with black body source. Two different types of metal samples, namely aluminum and nickel, were employed to understand reaction behavior upon the impact of samples in ambient condition. According to our experiments, the Ni sample appeared to barely react with ambient air producing an instant small fireball, while Al sample reacts violently with air generating a relatively prolong fireball.

하나의 관리도로 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 절차

정상현,이재현,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Lee, Jae-Heon 한국통계학회 2008 응용통계연구 Vol.21 No.3

평균과 분산이 동시에 변화할 수 있는 공정을 관리할 경우, 평균의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도와 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도를 병행하여 사용하는 것이 일반적이다. 여러 연구자들이 하나의 관리도를 사용하여 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 동시에 탐지할 수 있는 절차를 제안했는데, 이 논문에서는 이와 같은 관리도들을 소개하고 그 효율을 비교하였다. 그 결과 GLR 관리도 Omnibus EWMA 관리도 그리고 Interval 관리도는 충분히 좋은 효율을 가짐을 알 수 있었다. Two control charts are usually required to monitor both the process mean and variance. In this paper, we introduce control procedures for jointly monitoring the process mean and variance with one control chart, and investigate efficiency of the introduced charts by comparing with the combined two EWMA charts. Our numerical results show that the GLR chart, the Omnibus EWMA chart, and the Interval chart have good ARL properties for simultaneous changes in the process mean and variance.

대리권 남용행위에 대한 효과차단의 근거와 대리본질론의 역할 재검토 - 표현대리에 대한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용 판례를 중심으로 -

鄭相鉉 ( Jung Sang Hyun ) 법조협회 2019 法曹 Vol.68 No.5

로마법 이래 근대에 이르기까지 법률행위를 하는 자와 그에 따른 법률효과를 받는 자가 동일하다는 것은 오랜 역사를 통하여 구축된 법률전통이었다. 근대 이후의 사회·경제적 변화는 법률행위를 하지 않은 자에게 법률효과를 귀속시키기 위한 법률제도와 그 이론적 근거의 창안을 견인하였다. 이에 따라 대리제도가 등장하고 대리의 본질을 설명하기 위한 이론적 노력이 독일 보통법을 중심으로 활발하게 전개되었다. 본인행위설, 공동행위설, 대리인행위설 등이 그것이며, 20세기 중반을 거치면서 등장한 통합요건설과 행위규율분리설의 설명 방법은 또 다른 논란거리를 낳았다. 전통적인 대리인행위설은 표현대리를 무권대리로 보고 대리권 남용 법리가 적용되는 것은 유권대리를 전제로 한 개념이라고 생각하였다. 그러나 행위규율분리설에 의하면 표현대리의 법적 성격을 유권대리로 볼 뿐만 아니라 상대방이 알았거나 알 수 있는 대리권 남용행위를 무권대리로 이해하여 기존의 인식체계를 흔들어 놓았다. 나아가 우리나라에서는 표현대리에 대하여 대리권 남용 법리를 적용한 판결도 나타났다. 그 결론은 대리의 본질에 관한 대리인행위설과 그 대척점에 있는 행위규율분리설 중 어떤 견해에 의하더라도 이해하기 어렵다. 대리인행위설을 따르면 위 판결은 무권대리에 불과한 표현대리에 대하여 유권대리를 전제로 하는 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용한 결과가 된다. 또한 행위규율분리설에 따르면 위 판결은 유권대리로 보는 표현대리인에 대하여 대리권 남용의 법리를 적용함으로써 그를 무권대리로 만들고, 이때 이 무권대리인은 표현대리 규정의 적용으로 다시 유권대리가 될 수 있어서 무한반복의 순환론에 빠지고 만다. 결국 위 판결의 결론에는 동일한 사실에 대하여 서로 양립할 수 없는 두 인식체계가 공존하기 때문에, 대리의 본질에 관한 어떤 입장을 취하더라도 논리적이고 균형적인 해석이 불가능하다. 대리권 남용행위는 형식상 대리행위의 요건을 모두 충족하였으므로 대리효과가 발생하는 것이 원칙이다. 다만 대리인의 배임행위에 대하여 그 상대방의 비난가능성, 즉 대리인의 배임의사를 알았거나 알 수 있었던 경우 본인 보호를 위하여 예외적으로 대리효과 발생을 배척할 뿐이다. 그러므로 이러한 대리권 남용 법리의 적용범위는 가급적 제한되어야 하고, 표현대리에까지 이를 적용하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 생각건대 표현대리에 의한 법률효과 귀속과 대리권 남용법리 적용은 별개로 논의되어야 한다. 대리권 남용행위는 엄연히 유권대리에 적용될 수 있으며, 이때 현명을 포함하여 대리행위의 일반적 요건에 흠결이 없다면, 본인에 대한 효과발생을 차단할 논리적 근거는 없다. 그렇다면 이러한 경우에 오히려 본인에 대한 효과귀속은 인정하되, 대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 한 점과 상대방이 이를 알았거나 알 수 있었다는 점에 대한 유책성에 근거하여 이들의 법률관계를 재구성하는 편이 낫다. 표현대리가 성립하였고 표현대리인이 대리권 남용행위를 하였더라도 그 대리행위의 효과를 본인에게 귀속시킨다면 본인이 그로 인하여 손해를 입을 것임은 자명하다. 이러한 본인의 손해를 전보하기 위하여, 표현대리인의 배임행위와 상대방의 악의 또는 과실에 근거하여 이들 모두에게 불법행위에 근거한 손해배상책임을 지우면 될 것이다. It is a legal tradition built through a long history that the effect of the legal acts is attributed to themselves who conduct it until the 19th century. Since then, socioeconomic changes have led to the creation of a legal system and its rationale for attributing legal effects to those who have not acted. Therefore, the agency system appeared, and the efforts to explain the relation between the separate legal actors and the effect attributors and the reason for the legitimate legal effect were actively developed centering on the German Common Law. Those are ‘the theory of principal behavior’, ‘the theory of agent behavior’ and ‘the theory of principal and agent joint behavior’ etc. And other theories that appeared later, ‘the theory of integration requirement’ and ‘the theory of separation of behavior and discipline’ have caused another controversy. While accepting the legislative historical ground that the provisions on the agency of the Korean Civil Law were made by ‘the theory of agent behavior’, there are opinions which argued differently in specific cases. One of the most serious issues is appeared the case in which the theory on the abuse of agency authority, that is to say the theory which block an effect of legitimate agent's legal conduct for his betrayal intention, apply to the non-authorized agent represented a legitimate agent. In particular, the such conclusion of the present case is difficult to reasonably understand, even by any theory on the nature of agency. There is no provision in the Koran Civil Code that expresses external agency authority such as in Article 167, Paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code. The most similar provision seems to be the Article 125 of the Korean Civil Code as to the non-authorized agent looks like a legitimate agent. However, this provision differs from the German Civil Code in light of its requirements and effects, and also Article 126 and Article 129. Therefore, it is not convincing to insist on ‘the theory on the separation of behavior and discipline’ based on Korean Civil Code. Of course, we can not stop making such a claim as theories to explain the nature of agency regardless of the provisions of our Civil Code. However, in light of Article 130 of that Code, a contract made by an agent without authority is not effective, if he does not receive the confirmation of principal. It is difficult to understand the logic that take the agenda of an representative agent who is only non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. The regulations on representative agent are also subject to only ‘principal is responsible to’(Article 125, Article 126) or ‘principal can not resist’. It dose not take the agenda non-authorized agent as a legitimate agent. In principle, agency authority abusing conduct itself is a substitute effect, unlike the case of the application of theory on the abuse of agency authority, since it fulfills all the requirements of legitimate agent's conduct. However, if the other party of agent knew or could know the betrayal intention of the agent, the effect of the agent’s conduct is blocked for the protection of the principal. Therefore, the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be limited as much as possible, and it is not reasonable to apply this to non-authorized representative agent. I think that the attribution of legal effects by non-authorized representative agent’s conduct to the principal and the application of the theory on the abuse of agency authority should be discussed separately. It is better to reorganize their legal relationship based on the fact that the agent has acted an abuse of agency authority and that the other party knew or could have known about it. It is obvious that if non-authorized representative agent is established and he has done the action on abuse of agency authority, therefore the principal has the effect of the agency and he will be harmed inevitably. In order to convey these damages of the principal, it will be possible for authority abusing agent and his other side to bear liability of tort based on the betrayal intention of non-authorized representative agent and the malice or negligence of the other party.

法律行爲 要件體系의 批判的 分析과 再定立

정상현(Sang-Hyun Jung) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.4

About the condition of contract, the most of korean civil law scholars divide it into two groups, the condition of conclusion and the condition of effect, and then, divide each condition into general condition and special condition. They also think that each group of condition includes various and concrete elements of contract. For example, the general condition of conclusion includes the existence of parties, expression of will and purpose of contract, the special condition of conclusion includes the registration of property or notification of marriage etc., the general condition of effect includes the capacity of parties, confirmation of expression, possibility, lawfulness and social propriety of purpose, and the special condition of effect includes the permission on trade of real estate in particular area or the achievement of suspended condition etc. But this thought disorder the system of contractual condition in korean civil law, because the most of views differently divide the group of condition and classify various elements of contract at their own pleasure. And m a certain sense, these division and classification are incorrect from the different standpoint. Because it cannot be admitted that a contract is concluded but ineffective in view of the nature of contract. I think the condition of conclusion and the condition of effect cannot be divided in the light of nature of contract, and I also think it is enough that there are two kinds of condition for the conclusion of effective contract. The one is the general condition, that is to say, the capacity of parties, correspondence of expression, confirmative, possible, lawful and socially proper purposes. The other one is the special condition, that is to say, acquisition of permission, achievement of suspended condition, etc. Therefore, in relation to the effect of permission on trade of real estate in particular area, I suggest that all contracts are effective when the general condition is fulfilled, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the provisional validity of contract. And also suggest, the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contractant, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission. And especially, in area of agency, I think also that the representative authority of agent is the condition which reverts into the principal the effect of contract fanned between agent and other party. Therefore, about the contract between unauthorized agent and the other party, it is effective because the general condition is fulfilled, although effect of contract between them cannot be reverted into the principal for the absence of agent's representative authority. Of course, the Article 135 of the Korean Civil Code prescribes in the 1st Sentence that if a person who has made a contract as an agent of another can neither prove his authority nor get the principal to ratify the contract, he shall be liable to the other party, at the latter's option, either for the performance of the contract or for the compensation to damages. The most of korean civil law scholars and judicial precedents have interpreted that the Article based on the view as fallow. When the agent has the representative authority, the effect of representation has a binding power to the principal. But, although the agent has not the representative authority, he must also liable to the other party with the same extent which the other party can obtain full satisfaction from the principal when the agent has the representative authority. And they explain that the ground of agent's responsibility is for the sake of the protection of other party's reliance, transaction safety and confidence of agent system, and they also explain that the character of agent's responsibility is no-fault liability provided by law. But I don't think like them. I th

전용물소권의 인정여부에 대한 법리 재검토

정상현(Jung, Sang Hyun),이승현(Lee, Seung Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.3

This thesis is designed to establish a reasonable viewpoint about “actio de in rem verso”. The actio de in rem verso is the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment to third party who received the benefit from the contractual relationship, except the parties to the contract. It has its origins in roman law. But It was changed, under the influence of a valuable concept and the legal theory by the time and the place. On the other hand, most scholars of our country and the position of the Supreme Court of Korea argue as follows: The actio de in rem verso should not be accepted in that it disrupts stable operation of korean civil law. Concretely speaking, actio de in rem verso destroys autonomous contractual structure of right and duty. Moreover it makes contracts for a security right (guarantee, mortgage etc.) meaningless and corrodes bankruptcy law. Last but not least, it substantially deprives the fundamental right of self determination in entering into a contract, the freedom of choice on contractual counterpart and the liberty of contractual terms-making. Taking these into account, actio de in rem verso should not be accepted if there is no special need and regulations, for example, clause 2 of article 747 of Korean Civil Law. But, such claims are not right. the actio de in rem verso should be discussed on condition that it does not bring about a normative collision with other articles and principles of the korean civil law. As a general principle of modern civil law, contract law and unjust enrichment law are systematically separated. And as a supplementary judicial of contract law, there is unjust enrichment law. From each of these separate systems, actio de in rem verso occupy the position of the nature of the return of unjust enrichment claims. And actio de in rem verso is recognized as a general regime to realize substantial equity between the parties. In this respect, actio de in rem verso must be considered, as the general requirements of unjust enrichment. Therefore in most cases of actio de in rem verso, it must be admited. In conclusion, in our civil law, actio de in rem verso should be considered positively. And in this regard, the attitude of Supreme Court of Korea should be changed.

영미 계약법에 있어서 불법계약의 효력과 급부물의 반환청구

정상현(鄭相鉉)(Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.2

I wrote this article at George Washington College of American University in Washington D. C. during my sabbatical year, 2011-2012. At that time, I had concern for the maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio in common law. I intend to introduce the effect of illegal contracts and that maxim to ours. English writers commonly say that a contract may be illegal in four distinct ways. In the first place, a contract may be illegal in respect of the vary act of making it. All contracts the making of which is thus prohibited by law are for this reason and in this sense illegal contract, and are commonly void accordingly. In the second place, a contract may be illegal in respect of the performance of it. That is to say, it may consist of or involve an undertaking to do an unlawful or immoral act, and for this reason the contract itself is commonly void. However, a contract is not illegal and void merely because its performance would amount to the breach by one of the parties of prior and inconsistent contract made by him with some third person. In the third place, a contract may be illegal and void because made for an unlawful or immoral consideration. When the consideration is executory, this case is identical with illegality in performance. Fourthly, a contract may be illegal and void in respect of the ulterior purpose or object of one or both of the parties in entering into that contract. In such case if the wrongful purpose of the one party is known to the other the contract is illegal and void. In common law, contracts are affected by illegality into a number of classes. One object of this classification is to make it possible to generalize about the effects of illegality, another object is purely expository. Various criteria have been used for the purpose of classifying the cases. The first criterion is the nature of the objectionable conduct. They classified the cases into those where the contract was contrary to positive law, those where it was contrary to morals or good manners, and those where it was contrary to public policy. The main difficulty with it is that the second category of contracts contrary to morals or good manners is hard to define and that is may overlap with the third. It can be argued that public policy is the ground for invalidating all contracts affected by illegality, so that the third category includes the other two. A second possible criterion for classification is the formal source of the invalidation rule, which may be derived from common law or from statue. But the distinction is not decisive where the illegality consists in the making or performance of the contract. The third, classification may proceed by the legal consequences of the contracts concerned. Thus a writer distinguished between ‘illegal contract’ and ‘nugatory contracts’, and the same classification has been adopted by later writers who distinguished between ‘illegal contract’ and ‘void contracts’. The maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio has no application to a nugatory contract, but applies exclusively to those which are illegal. A contract which is void for illegality, and therefore not binding on either of the parties, may nevertheless be in fact performed in whole or in part by one or both of them. In an illegal contract for the sale and purchase of goods the seller may deliver the goods. Is the seller entitled to get the goods back on the ground that the contract is void? In other words, what right of restitution exists as between the parties to an illegal contract? The general answer is that no such right exists. The rights of parties are governed by a special rule formulated in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio. This maxim as to turpis causa is otherwise expressed in the saying, in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. An illegal contract is a turpis causa within the meaning of this principle.

Clausula rebus sic stantibus 法理의 形成과 發展

정상현(Jung, Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.1

La pluspart des savants parle que la théorie du changement des circonstances tire son origine de la clausula rebus sic stantibus dans le droit canonique et l'école de postglose. Mais, j'eus la question que n'ya-t-il l'origine de cette théorie dans le droit romain. Donc, j'en y fis des efforts à ma manière de chercher. Je regardai attentivement des archives et des textes sur la théorie dans le droit romain de Justinian, Corpus Juris Civilis. Après de la recherche longtemps, je découvris l'origine de la théorie dans le Digesta et le Codex du droit romain. Ce-la est dans les textes, resolvi putant, cum in eum casum reciderunt et si in eadem causa maneat, qui signifie que le contrat peut été résolu en cas du changement des circonstances. Et les règlements similaires eurent été découvert dans le droit germain. Par l'analyse attentive du Langobardisches Lehnrecht, l'article 180 de Edictum Rothari priscrit sur la dissolution des fiançailles par la maladie de la fiancée et l'article 4 de verset 4 de Lex Visigothorum priscrit sur la résolution du contrat et la restitution du acompte par le changement des circonstances. En plus, j'éclairai l'origine primitive de cette théorie dans le Code Hammurabi. Je pense qu'il est le point de départ historique de cette théorie, parce que l'article 111 de ce code déjâ reconnaît la modification des contenus du contrat par la différence des prix entre saisons de la semailles et de la récolte. Un mois est passé depuis, je pensai de écrire une article sur la création et le développement de la clausula rebus sic stantibus dans le droit canonique et l'école de postglose, pourvu que je s'arrange pour préparer. Donc, j'écris cette article, et je pus connaître les faits que les canonistes avent formé la clausula rebus sic stantibus comme le principe général et les postglossateurs avent développé celle-la. Particulièrement, les canonistes du moyen âge découvrirent convenablement la clausula rebus sic stantibus par la considération sur l'imperfection de la volonté humaine dans la théorie du droit traditionel, bien que le principe de pacta sunt servanda eut dominé le monde du droit contractuel cette époque-la. Leurs aussi les postglossateurs avent développé la clausula rebus sic stantibus malgré l'opposition de l'école du droit naturelle. Mais cette tendance fut en face d'une crise à partir de 18e siécle. Il ya deux causes. La première cause est que la sécurité des relations contractuelles est géné par l'application vaste de la clausula rebus sic stantibus, meme si cette théorie est due à l'idée de l'équité entre parties contractuels. La deuxième cause est que l'école du droit historique ne eut pas reconnu la clausula rebus sic stantibus que le droit romain ne eut pas su. Parce que les savants du droit historique eut insisté le principe de la pacta sunt servanda dans le droit contractuel et ils eut respecté la fidélité dans les rélations commérciales. Malgré cela, la théorie de la clausula rebus sic stantibus découvrit dans les plusieurs codes qui eurent été rédiger à partir de la moitié de 18e siécle. D'abord, verset 12 de quinzième chapitre de quatrième livre de Codex Maximilianeus Bavaricus Civilis(Max. Bav. Civ.) an 1756 présenta la thèorie comme la cause du changement et la disparition des rélations contractuelles. L'article 377 de quinzième chapitre de premier livre de Allgemeines La

상대방에 대한 무권대리인 책임의 연혁적 고찰

정상현(Sang Hyun Jung) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2016 성균관법학 Vol.28 No.3

The Article 135 of the Korean Civil Code prescribes in the 1st Sentence that if a person who has made a contract as an agent of another can neither prove his authority nor get the principal to ratify the contract, he shall be liable to the other party, at the latter’s option, either for the performance of the contract or for the compensation to damages. This article has followed the Article 179 of the German Civil Code and Article 177 of the Japanese Civil Code in prescribing the responsibility for the performance of the contract or for compensation to damages. If the other party could have obtained full satisfaction from the principal had the contract been binding on him, the unauthorized agent is liable to the same extent. In general, legal scholars explain that the ground of agent’s responsibility is for the sake of the protection of third party’s reliance, transaction safety and confidence of agent system. They also insist that agent’s responsibility is no-fault liability providing by law. But there are several questions as follows in this explanation. Why is the agent liable to the same extent with principal, despite of having no authority? Why is the agent liable to the performance of the contract, although the contract between the unauthorized agent and the other party is void? Aggravation of agent’s responsibility according to the general explanation is one of the fictional thought, therefore this explanation take an other run. I think that the ground of agent’s responsibility have to be found in his intention, therefore I suggest the theory of implied warranty as a ground for that responsibility in this paper. If the agent has not aware his no authority, he is liable to the other party for his intention of warranty to the authority of representation. If the agent has aware his no authority, he is liable for his intention of warranty to the principal’s ratification. The agent is in such circumstances liable for breach of an implied warranty that he has the authority or ratification which he purports to have. Of course, this suggestion is not new viewpoint at all, having no originality. The general explanation of the preceding part was insisted by Josef Hupka, on of the german legal scholars, to explain the Article 179 of the German Civil Code. The insistence of Hupka is introduced by Hatoyama Hideo, one of the japanese legal scholars, and generalized in Japan. These interpretation flows generally to korean civil law. The most substantial contradiction is that unauthorized agent’s responsibility for the performance of the contract is prescribed in the Article 135 of the Korean Civil Code. This is the cause of aggravation of agent’s responsibility and appearance of general explanation. Therefore, I suggest the revision of Article 135 that he shall be liable to the other party for only compensation to damages instead of performance, if a person who has made a contract as an agent of another can neither prove his authority nor get the principal to ratify the contract in the 1st Sentence. Many countries, that is to say, French, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan Civil Code have a same provision. And this is the lawmaking trend of international convention and european contract law. 우리민법 제135조는 무권대리인이 자신에게 대리권이 있음을 증명하지 못하고 본인의 추인을 얻지 못하면, 상대방은 그의 선택에 좇아 무권대리인을 상대로 계약의 이행 또는 손해배상책임을 물을 수 있다고 규정한다. 그런데 이와 같이 손해배상책임 외에 이행책임을 규정함으로써 그 책임의 내용과 범위가 무권대리인이 유권대리였다면 본인에게 발생하였을 책임과 동일한 정도 내지 계약이 유효하게 성립된 경우와 유사한 정도의 책임을 지며, 상대방이 손해배상책임을 선택하더라도 유권대리 내지 계약의 유효성을 전제로 신뢰이익이 아닌 이행이익을 배상해야 하는 것으로 파악한다. 그러나 무권대리인은 본인을 위하여 대리행위를 하였을 뿐 스스로 그 계약에 구속될 효과의사가 없었고, 상대방 역시 무권대리인이 아니라 본인과의 법률효과 귀속을 의욕하였을 뿐이므로, 무권대리인과 상대방에게 대리행위로 인한 법률효과를 귀속시킬 수는 없다. 그럼에도 위 규정은 무권대리행위 자체가 불성립이거나 무효인 상태로 상대방에 대한 무권대리인의 ‘이행책임’을 인정할 뿐만 아니라, 이행책임이 병렬적으로 규정된 논리적 귀결에 따라 상대방이 ‘손해배상책임’을 선택하는 경우에 배상범위가 이행이익으로 확대된다. 결국 이 규정과 그에 대한 일반적 해석론은 민법상의 의사표시이론 및 대리효과 귀속원리에 부합하지 않는 결과를 초래하고 말았다. 이러한 해석상의 논란은 무권대리행위의 법률적 효과를 무권대리인 자신에게 귀속시킬 수는 없음에도, 민법 제135조가 무권대리인에게 ‘이행책임’을 지도록 규정한데서 기인한다. 이것이 독일민법 제179조를 획일적으로 단순화하여 수정한 일본민법 제117조를 비판적 검토 없이 그대로 수용한 우리민법 제135조의 연혁적 한계이다. 그러므로 본 논문의 목적은 우리민법 제135조에 직접적으로 영향을 미친 일본민법 제117조와 독일민법 제179조의 입법과정에 대한 역사적 의미를 검토하고, 이와 다른 내용으로 규정된 최근의 국제적 입법동향과 프랑스민법 등 손해배상책임만을 규정한 입법례와의 비교검토를 통하여, 우리민법에 대한 바람직한 해석론 및 입법론 제시의 단초로 삼기 위함이다.

대리권 남용행위의 유형분석에 따른 법률관계 재검토

정상현(鄭相鉉)(Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2017 성균관법학 Vol.29 No.1

Bei Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht können aus Rechtshandlungen eines Vertreters keine Rechte gegen den Vertretenen hergeleitet werden, wenn der vertreter bewusst die Vollmacht zum Nachteil des Vertretenen missbraucht hat und der Dritte diesen Missbrauch gekannt hat oder hätte erkennen müssen. Die Einräumung einer bestimmten Vertretungsmacht, sei es durch den Vertretenen selbst, sei es durch die Satzung einer Körperschaft, sei es unmittelbar durch die Rechtsordnung in den Fällen der gesetzlichen Vertretung, soll den Vertreter dazu in den Stand setzen, die Interessen des Vertretenen, in einigen Fällen auch Interessen Dritter, im rechtsgeschäftlichen Verkehr mit Wirkung für den Vertretenen wahrzunehmen. Indessen kennt das Gesetz keine allgemeine Beschränkung der Vertretungsmacht dahingehend, dass diese jeweils nur so weit reicht, als der Vertreter von ihr einen pflichtgemässen Gebrauch macht. Anders als bei der Überschreitung der Vertretungsmacht hält sich der Vertreter bei ihrem Missbrauch im Rahmen der ihm erteilten Vertretungsmacht, beachtet jedoch nicht die ihm im Innenverhältnis zum Vertretenen für ihre Ausübung gezogenen Grenzen. Der Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht setzt voraus, dass die pflichtwidrige Nichtbeachtung der im Innenverhältnis bestehenden Bindung die Vertretungsmacht grundsätzlich unberührt lässt. Der Vertretene trägt grundsätzlich das Risko eines pflichtwidrigen Verhaltens des Vertreters. Eine gesetzliche Regelung fehlt. Durch die Grundsätze über den Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht wird versucht, diese einseitige Riskobelastung im Rahmen einer sachgerechten Abwägung der Interessen des Geschäftsgegners und des Vertretenen unter Berücksichtigungren der beiderseits zurechenbaren Risken gerecht zu verteilen. Über dies Ziel besteht Einigkeit. Trotzdem sind die Auffassung im Einzelnen kontrovers und uneinheitlich. Unumstritten ist der Fall der Kollusion. Wenn Vertreter und Geschäftsgegner bewusst zum Nachteil des Vertretenen zusammenwirken, ist das Rechtsgeschäft gemäß §103 KBGB nichtig. Die Sittenwidrigkeit von kollusionen Zusatzabsprachen des Vertreters mit dem Geschäftsgegner, die hinter dem Rücken und zu Lasten des Vertretenen getroffen werden, wird in der Regel auch das Hauptgeschäft zwischen den Vertragsparteien erfassen. Vertreter und Geschäftspartner haften den Vertretenen jedenfalls gemäss §§750, 760 KBGB auf Schadensersatz, so dass einem Erfüllungsanspruch die Arglisteinrede entgegenstünde. Daneben kommen Ansprüche positiver Forderungsverletzung im Betracht. 대리행위의 성립요건과 유효요건이 모두 충족되었음에도 대리인의 대리권 남용행위에 대하여 본인에 대한 효과귀속을 차단하는 법리가 ‘대리권 남용이론’(Die Lehre des Missbrauches der Vertretungsmacht)이다. 대리인이 본인에게 효과를 귀속시킬 대리의사를 갖고 자신의 대리권 범위 내에서 대리행위를 하였으나, 그 속내가 본인이 아닌 대리인 자신 또는 상대방의 이익을 꾀하기 위한 것이고, 그러한 대리인의 배임적 의도를 상대방이 ‘알았거나 알 수 있었던’ 경우에는 본인에게 대리행위의 효과를 귀속시킬 수 없다는 것이다. 대리권이 없거나 그 범위를 넘은 무권대리(제135조)가 아니므로 대리행위의 효과는 본인에게 귀속되어야 하지만, 상대방의 악의 또는 (중)과실을 근거로 본인에 대한 대리행위의 효과귀속 자체를 차단시키기 위한 법률구성으로, 우리 민법학계의 공통된 인식에 근거 하고 있다.

아웃사이드미러 떨림 시험법 및 재질 최적화 기술 연구

정상현(Jung, Sang Hyun),김일수(Kim, Ill Soo),유병섭(Yu, Byung Sub),하동현(Ha, Dong Hyun),민복기(Min, Bok Ki),최병곤(Choi, Byung Gon) 한국자동차공학회 2017 한국자동차공학회 학술대회 및 전시회 Vol.2017 No.11

Outside-mirror that provides the driver a smooth rear vision is to be considered rigid so that no vibration occurs is located outside the front door. Were but conduct a la carte Analysis of stiffness oriented Until now, not the actual vehicle condition is applied, the failure to utilize the vibration characteristics data robust design is insufficient trembling evaluation of a la carte condition and vibration assessment of vehicle condition of the vehicle differs from the design stage I could see that. Through this study, we propose a technique to screen matches the evaluation of the vehicle and the part itself through the vibration evaluation, and material optimization study utilized a vehicle vibration characteristics of the mirror and reduce cost and weight and at the same time ensuring the consistency of interpretation.