비교법논문 : 미국법상 법원모욕죄와 우리 형법 제140조의 비교법적 분석 -부작위 의무를 명하는 가처분 위반을 중심으로-

이상현 ( Sang Hyun Lee ) 한국비교형사법학회 2009 비교형사법연구 Vol.11 No.2

본 논문은 법치주의의 보루인 사법부의 권위 하락 및 국민의 사법 불신에 대한 문제의식에서 법원의 가처분 명령 중 금지의무를 부과하는 가처분에 대한 불이행을 ``공무상비밀표시무효죄``의 적극적 해석론을 통해 규제할 것을 제안한다. 미국법상 법원모욕죄의 비교법적 분석을 통해 본 논문은 우리 법제가 법원의 명령 불이행에 대해 매우 관대한 태도를 취해 왔음을 지적한다. 영국 보통법에서 기원하여 미국 법체제에서 사법부의 권위 유지를 위해 활발히 활용되어 온 법원모욕죄는 법정내 재판부 모욕행위에 대한 처벌(직접적 법원모욕)뿐만 아니라 법원의 명령 등에 대한 불이행에 대한 처벌(간접적 법원모욕)를 규제하며 민사벌과 형사벌까지 내릴 수 있는 권한을 판사에 부과하고 있다. 간접적 법원모욕에 관해, 작위의무 위반은 민사벌, 부작위의무 위반은 형사벌로 처벌하던 종래 이분법으로부터, 사실관계와 다양해진 유지명령을 고려 피고인의 절차보장이 필요한 때 형사벌로 인정하는 태도로 연방대법원의 판례가 변화하고 있음을 밝힌다. 이러한 법원모욕죄는 노동법 등 정치적으로 예민한 사안에서 미국법원이 내린 결정에 대한 실효성을 부여하며 사법부의 권위를 확보하는데 중요한 역할을 한 것으로 평가되고 있다. 가처분 신청사건이 갈수록 늘어가는 우리의 현실에서 법원의 가처분명령에 대한 집행력 확보를 위해, 가처분의 수명자와 의무의 내용을 구체적으로 명확히 서술함을 전제로, 제140조의 공무상비밀표시를 부작위의무를 명하는 가처분의 결정문 수령시로 앞당겨, 집달관의 집행행위 이전에, 이를 불이행한 행위를 처벌하는 것이, 죄형법정주의 원칙에 위배된다고 보이지 않는다. The Judicial Body in the Republic of Korea(ROK) has been lenient against activities disrespectful of court`s orders or injunction. Such disrespect to courts` injunction has faced at worst a fine amounting to US$ some thousands under sec.140 of Korea`s criminal code which can penalize such a disrespectful act as makes court`s injunction useless. Courts in ROK have narrowed the coverage of the provision in such a way that a marshal`s execution is needed as an element of the crime besides the notice of an injunction to a party. On the contrary, courts in the U.S., where the judiciary have maintained high authority under a sound principle of rule of law, have been strict against violation of not abiding by courts` various kinds of orders or injunctions. Contempt of court, imported from the U.K., have been effectively implemented with civil and criminal penalty of a fine or imprisonment. On the comparative legal analysis between the U.S. and ROK, the coverage of the crime of rendering null and void a symbol of official secrecy (sec.140) may be enlarged to include violation of a court`s injunction only with a court`s notice. Rather than waiting for a marshal`s execution of a court`s injunction/ order, the criminal provision can apply to a violator who does not comply with the injunction provided that a court`s notice is concrete and recipient receives and understands the contents of the notice. A loose penalty against direct contempt of court in ROK compared to the U.S., besides former narrow interpretation of sec.140, may as well be corrected so as to restore the authority of the judicial decision.

관할합의에 기초한 訴訟留止命令 (Anti-suit Injunction)의 법적 쟁점

이규호(Lee, Gyooho) 한국국제사법학회 2019 國際私法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

2005년 6월 30일 채택되어 2015년 10월 1일 발효된 헤이그 재판관할합의 협약은 2018년 8월 23일 현재 체약국의 수는 37개국(유럽연합 포함)에 이른다. 미국, 유럽연합, 중국, 싱가포르 등이 이 협약의 체약국인 상태이나 우리나라는 2019년 4월 15일 현재 이 협약의 체약국이 아니다. 이 협약은 민사사건 또는 상사사건에게 체결된 전속적 관할합의에 적용된다. 이 협약의 적용범위는 소비자계약, 근로계약 및 그 밖의 특정 대상을 제외하고 있다. 대다수의 경우 이러한 적용 배제의 이유는 이러한 사안에 대한 전속관할을 규정한 국제조약, 국내법, 지역적 규칙 또는 국제적 규칙이 존재하기 때문이다. 이 협약 제3조에 따르면, 당사자가 명시적으로 달리 정하지 아니하는 한 체약국의 하나 이상의 특정 법원을 지정하는 합의는 전속적인 성격을 지니는 것으로 간주한다. 그 밖에 이 협약 제22조에 따르면, 체약국은 부가적인 관할합의(non-exclusive choice of court agreement)에서 지정된 법원이 선고한 판결을 승인 및 집행할 것을 선언할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 전술한 바와 같이 미국, 영국 등 영미법계 국가가 이 협약의 체약국이고, 특히 영국에서는 이 협약이 2019년 4월 1일 발효되었다. 그 밖에 영국을 제외한 유럽연합에서도 이 협약이 2015년 10월 1일 발효되었다. 아시아에서는 싱가포르가 2015년 3월 25일 서명하였고 2016년 6월 2일 비준하였다. 이 협약이 싱가포르에서 2016년 10월 1일 발효되었다. 미국, 영국, 싱가포르 등 영미법계국가의 법원이 소송유지명령(Anti-suit injunction)을 허용하고 있다는 점에서 이 협약에의 가입 내지 발효가 소송유지명령에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 여부가 궁금해질 수밖에 없다. 서유럽대륙법계 국가는 소송유지명령에 대한 부정적이라는 점에서 이 협약이 어떻게 작동할지 여부를 분석하는 것은 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다고 하겠다. 본고는 이 협약과 소송유지명령의 상관관계를 살피는 것을 주된 과제로 하고자 한다. 다만, 이 협약에 서명은 하였으나 가입은 하지 않은 미국의 법원이 여전히 소송유지명령을 활용할 수 있기 때문에 전속적 국제재판관할 합의를 위반하여 다른 국가의 법원에 소를 제기한 경우에 미국 법원이 소송유지명령을 내릴 수 있는지 여부 등도 살펴보기로 한다. As of August 23, 2018, The number of the contracting States, including EU, to Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements amounts to 37. The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements has been effective since October 1, 2015. USA, EU, China, and Singapore are the contracting States to Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements but the Republic of Korea are not as of April 15, 2019. The Convention is applicable to exclusive choice of court agreements in civil or commercial cases. The scope of its application excludes consumer contracts, employment contracts and other specific subjects. The grounds for its exclusion are mostly based on the existence of international instruments, domestic laws, or regional or international rules which provide exclusive jurisdiction in those cases. According to Article 3(b) of the Convention, a choice of court agreement which designates the courts of one Contracting State or one or more specific courts of one Contracting State shall be deemed to be exclusive unless the parties have expressly provided otherwise. In addition, a Contracting State may declare its courts will recognize and enforce judgments given by courts of other Contracting States designated in a non-exclusive choice of court agreement under Article 22 of the Convention. As mentioned above, common law countries such as USA and UK are the contracting States of the Convention. In particular, the Convention has been effective in UK since April 1, 2019. In addition, the Convention has been effective in EU member States except for UK since October 1, 2015. In Asia, Singapore signed the Convention on March 25, 2015 and ratified on June 2, 2016. In Singapore, it has been effective since October 1, 2016. It is scholarly curious how adoption or entry in force of the Convention in common law countries such as USA, UK and Singapore can have effect on anti-suit injunction available in those countries. To analyze how it functions in connection with anti-suit injunction can give very important implications to us in that civil law countries including the Republic of Korea are not prone to anti-suit injunctions. This Article mainly aims in exploring the relationship between the Convention and anti-suit injunction. Nonetheless, the Article deals with the issues as to whether a US court can issue an anti-suit injunction in a case where a party brought a lawsuit against the opposing party before a court of another country in violation of the exclusive choice of court agreement because courts of the USA, which signed the Convention but did not accede it, can use anti-suit injunctions.

헌법소원에 있어서 가처분절차에 관한 비교법적 연구 - 한국과 독일을 중심으로 -

김상겸 한독사회과학회 2008 한독사회과학논총 Vol.18 No.1

1987년 헌법이 개정되면서 헌법재판소가 도입되었다. 1988년부터 헌법재판소는 활동을 시작하여 지금까지 약 20년이 되었다. 그동안 헌법재판소는 국민의 기본권 보장과 국가작용의 정당성을 위하여 많은 판결을 하였다. 그 중에서도 헌법재판소에 의한 헌법소원심판은 기본권 보장을 위하여 많은 역할을 수행하고 있다. 이제 우리나라 헌법재판에서 헌법소원제도는 국민의 기본권보장을 위한 중요한 제도로 자리 잡고 발전하고 있다. 국민의 흠이 없는 권리보호를 위하여 헌법은 재판청구권도 규정하고 있지만, 예외적인 수단으로 헌법소원제도도 가지고 있다. 그러나 우리나라 헌법소원제도는 그 본래의 취지와 달리 헌법소원의 대상에서 사법부의 판결을 제외하여 기형적이다. 그렇지만 헌법소원제도는 국민의 기본권 보장을 위하여 중요한 수단이다. 우리나라 헌법소원제도의 또 다른 문제는 가처분절차의 규정이 없다는 것이다. 본안 소송이전에 선취효를 막기 위한 제도적 장치인 가처분절차가 마련되어 있지 않아서 그 의미를 반감시키고 있다. 그렇지만 헌법재판소는 규정이 없음에도 불구하고 헌법소원제도에서 가처분절차를 허용하여 논란을 불러일으켰다. 가처분절차는 소송법에서 본안소송의 의미를 상실시키는 것을 막고, 흠이 없는 권리보호를 위한 법치국가원리에 근거하여 등장한 소송법상의 중요한 제도이다. 가처분심판은 본안소송과 결부되어 있지만, 소송 자체는 독립된 절차이다. 이런 점에서 가처분절차의 법적 근거가 없는 경우 가처분절차를 인정할 것인지 여부가 항상 논란이 되고 있다. 왜냐하면 소송절차는 입법부가 제정하는 법률에 의해야 한다. 이는 권력분립원칙에 다른 것이다. 독일과 달리 명문의 규정이 없는 우리나라는 헌법소원제도에서 가처분제도를 적용하는 것은 헌법의 위배여지가 있기 때문이다. 이런 논란을 없애기 위해서는 헌법재판에서 가처분절차의 규정을 일반절차에 명문화하는 것이 필요하다. The Constitutional Court of Korea was established with the amendment of the Constitution in 1987. It has been 20 years that the Constitutional Court started to play its role since 1987. The Court has made a lot of judicial decisions that reaffirm the fundamental right of people and the justifiability of national authority. Especially the Court is playing a very important part in guaranteeing the fundamental right of people. Especially the jurisdiction over Constitutional Complaint is the central part of the role. Constitutional petition is developing into an important institution for the fundamental right of people. The Constitution lists the right of access to courts for the protection of the rights. In addition to it, the Constitutional petition (Constitutional complaints) is defined as an exceptional means to protect one's rights. However, the Constitutional petition in Korea is abnormal in that it excludes the decisions of judicature from the object of petition despite the court's importance for the protection of fundamental rights. Another problem of Constitutional petition in Korea is that it does not include a distinct provision of preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction, in equity, is an injunction entered by a court prior to a determination of the merits of a legal case, in order to restrain a party from going forward with a course of conduct until the case has been decided. The Constitutional Court provoked controversy by allowing preliminary injunction although its procedure is not stated in the Constitution. Preliminary injunction is an important institution in procedural law which is based on the principle of constitutional state. It is linked with the merits of a legal case but is regarded as an independent procedure. In this aspect, it has always been a controversy whether to admit preliminary injunction in the case it is not based on legal provision. Because legal procedure must be based on the provisions enacted by the legislation, according to the principle of separation of the powers. In Korea, unlike Germany which has a distinctive provision on preliminary injunction, has a possibility to violate the Constitution by allowing the procedure. To put an end to this controversy, the procedure of preliminary injunction should expressly be stipulated as a general procedure.

보전처분재판의 실무 – 항고심 재판에서 나타난 쟁점을 중심으로 –

황진구 한국민사집행법학회 2009 民事執行法硏究 : 韓國民事執行法學會誌 Vol.5 No.-

본고는 민사보전처분에 대한 항고사건 처리과정에서 관련 자료들을 검토 하면서 단편적으로 정리의 필요성을 느낀 사안들에 대한 간단한 설명이다. 논의의 소재는 기술적이고 지엽적인 것들이 대부분이나, 깊은 연구가 필요 한 큰 주제들 사이에서 상대적으로 논의의 중요성이 떨어지더라도, 조문과 조문 사이에서 전체적으로 체계가 잡힌 민사집행법 영역을 구축하는 데 다 소나마 도움이 되기를 기대하는 마음에서 나름대로 독자적인 입장을 피력하 고자 하였다. 논의의 대상은 민사보전처분분야로 한정하였다. 보전처분신청과 결정 단계에서는 계쟁물가처분과 임시지위가처분의 구별 기준을 제시하고, 보전처분 신청에 대한 결정에서 소송비용부담에 관한 부 분은 즉시 집행할 수 있는 것으로 보았다. 보전처분에 대한 불복 단계에서 이의신청의 이익이 없다고 보아 이의신 청을 각하할 경우와 이의신청은 적법하고 신청의 이익이 없어 보전처분결정 을 취소하고 신청을 각하할 경우를 구별하였다. 보전처분취소신청에서 보전 채무자가 아닌 제3자에게 취소신청권을 인정할 경우에 관한 이론을 통일적 으로 구성할 필요성을 제기하였다. 본안승소 후 본집행에 나아가지 않은 경 우에 보전처분에 관한 보전의 필요성이 소멸된다고 보는 대법원 판례의 입 장에 약간의 의문을 제기하고, 사정변경에 의한 보전취소신청의 관할법원에 대해서도 일반적인 설명과 다른 입장을 취하였다. 보전명령을 위하여 제공된 담보의 취소사유와 관련하여 본안소송이 이미 제기되어 있는 경우에는 본안소송이 완결되어야 소송이 완결된 경우에 해당 한다고 보았다. This article briefly arranged issues arising from the process of an appeal trial raised against a judgment of preliminary injunction in civil cases. At a stage of an application and a determination on an appeal to an order of preliminary injunction, this article suggested that there is a criterion by which a provisional disposition with regard to a specific subject matter in dispute and provisional injunction with regard to determination of provisional status can be distinguished, and that at a stage of determination on application of preliminary injunction, the determination on bearing the cost of lawsuit can be immediately enforced. At a stage of an appeal on preliminary injunction, this article this article distinguished cases where an appeal should be rejected due to the lack of interest of an appeal, and due to the lack of interest of an application, the determination on preliminary injunction should be canceled and the application should be rejected. I raised a necessity to frame a coherent theory on the case where a court acknowledges, to a third party rather than an obligor on a claims to be preserved, a right to revoke in an application of preliminary injunction. I raised some questions on the Supreme court's judgment that when a party do not proceed to execute actual enforcement after winning a suit over merits, the necessity of preservation on preliminary injunction becomes extinct, and took a different view from a general explanation on the competent court having jurisdiction over an application of preliminary injunction based on an alteration of circumstances. I insisted that in relation to the grounds of revoking a surety provided for the order of preliminary injunction, when a suit over merits has been filed, only the completion of the suit over merits rather than the completion of preliminary injunction corresponds to the completion of lawsuit.

구상보증서 지급금지에 대한 중국 법원 판례연구

이선혜(Sun-Hae Lee) 한국무역연구원 2021 무역연구 Vol.17 No.5

Purpose Focusing on recent Chinese court cases, this study aims to review the perspective of Chinese courts on fraud exceptions under a demand guarantee, and derive precaution points for a guarantor in demanding payment under a counter-guarantee. Design/Methodology/Approach A literature study is conducted in relation to recent Chinese court cases with reference to International Standard Demand Guarantee Practice and ICC official opinion related to guarantees or counter guarantees. Findings First, Chinese courts have restricted application of fraud exception since the provisions of China’s Supreme People’s Court on independent guarantees were enacted in 2016. Second, Chinese courts judged that it was a manifest fraud that a guarantor falsely made a demand despite discrepancies in the beneficiary’s demand under a guarantee. Third, counter guarantors must decide whether to pay within five business days following the day of presentation, but often times they delay payment thus being informed from the local court that the applicant has filed for an injunction. Research Implications Chinese courts’ frequent allowance for fraud exception in the past aroused worldwide complaints. However, since enactment of independent guarantee provisions, Chinese courts have rarely issued injunctions. Thus, guarantees and counter-guarantees issued by Chinese banks these days have accordingly been considered trustworthy.

각국 법원모욕의 제재 방식에 관한 연구

하민경(Ha, Minkyung),양시훈,계인국,안문희 사법정책연구원 2015 사법정책연구원 연구총서 Vol.2015 No.-

본 연구는 사법질서의 보호 및 법치주의의 확립을 위해 각국 법원모욕의 제재 방식을 비교법적으로 살펴보고 각 제도들이 우리나라에 주는 시사점을 도출해 본 결과물이다. 제1장에서는 본 연구의 착수 배경이 되는 사례들을 포함하여 우리 법제도의 현황을 다룬다. 또한, 본문과 같이 법원모욕의 유형을 나눈 기준에 관하여 설명한다. 제2장은 재판진행을 방해하거나 법정질서를 침해하는 법원모욕행위를 규제하는 외국의 입법례와 사례들을 소개한다. 판사가 법원모욕행위를 직접 목격한 경우 간이한 절차로 형사제재를 가할 수 있는 영미법상 제재방식과 형법상 범죄로도 취급하지 않는 독일법을 비롯하여 다양한 제재방식을 국가별로 살펴본다. 제3장은 법원의 명령을 위반한 행위를 법원모욕으로 보는 영미법계 국가들을 중심으로 살펴본다. 특히 법원 명령의 이행 또는 불이행을 강제하기 위해 부과되는 법원모욕 제재는, 법원의 가처분 결정 등을 위반한 행위자에게 간접강제 외에 별다른 제재를 가하지 않음으로써 가처분 제도의 실효성을 확보하지 못하고 있는 우리의 상황에 해결방향을 제시 한다. 제4장에서는 소제기의 남용행위와 사법부에 대한 근거 없는 비판행위를 법원모욕으로 다루는 외국의 법제도를 알아보고, 사법 기능을 침해하는 행위에 대한 규제의 필요성도 아울러 논한다. 제5장의 결론은 본문에서 살펴 본 영국, 미국, 싱가포르, 독일, 프랑스, 국제재판소의 순서대로 각 제도의 특색을 요약한다. 이를 통해 국가별 법원모욕 제재의 특성을 한 눈에 살펴볼 수 있다. 각국의 법원모욕제도를 소개하고 분석한 본 연구가, 우리의 사법 집행을 방해하는 행위를 규제하여 사법 기능을 원활하게 작동시키고 국민의 재판받을 권리를 보장하는 데에 도움을 줄 수 있는 자료로서 널리 활용되기를 바란다. The present research was conducted on the law of contempt of court by using a comparative law analysis for the purposes of protecting judicial order and establishing rule of law. As an introductory part, Part I examines the current legal system and recent cases in Korea that served as premises for undertaking this research. It also identifies the standard for classification of types of contempt of court. Part II studies the contempt sanctions of various states on actions that pose a threat to orderly judicial proceedings. For example, under Anglo-American law, it is allowed for a judge to punish summarily an individual who committed direct contempt while the same act does not constitute a crime under German Law. Part III focuses on the legal systems where defiance of court orders is treated as contempt of court. Since it is axiomatic that continued disobedience or insubordination against court decisions undermine the very foundation of the law, this research suggests that contempt of court can be an efficacious solution for enforcing court orders. Part IV addresses the necessity of regulating actions that impede the judicial system, such as filing frivolous lawsuits and scandalizing the court by maliciously criticizing it. Pursuing a frivolous lawsuit and scandalizing the court call for contempt sanctions because they prevent the adequate administration of trials. In conclusion, Part V summarizes the contempt sanctions of UK, US, Singapore, Germany, France, and International Courts thereby providing each system’s characteristics at a glance. By introducing and analyzing the law of contempt of court in overseas jurisdictions, this research proposes a way to rebuild the rule of law that would guarantee the citizens a fair trial as a constitutional mandate: imposing various types of contempt sanctions on recalcitrant individuals who are regarded as to obstruct the administration of justice.

각국 법원모욕의 제재 방식에 관한 연구

하민경 ( Ha Minkyung ),양시훈,계인국,안문희 사법정책연구원 2015 연구보고서 Vol.2015 No.0

The present research was conducted on the law of contempt of court by using a comparative law analysis for the purposes of protecting judicial order and establishing rule of law. As an introductory part, Part I examines the current legal system and recent cases in Korea that served as premises for undertaking this research. It also identifies the standard for classification of types of contempt of court. Part II studies the contempt sanctions of various states on actions that pose a threat to orderly judicial proceedings. For example, under Anglo-American law, it is allowed for a judge to punish summarily an individual who committed direct contempt while the same act does not constitute a crime under German Law. Part III focuses on the legal systems where defiance of court orders is treated as contempt of court. Since it is axiomatic that continued disobedience or insubordination against court decisions undermine the very foundation of the law, this research suggests that contempt of court can be an efficacious solution for enforcing court orders. Part IV addresses the necessity of regulating actions that impede the judicial system, such as filing frivolous lawsuits and scandalizing the court by maliciously criticizing it. Pursuing a frivolous lawsuit and scandalizing the court call for contempt sanctions because they prevent the adequate administration of trials. In conclusion, Part V summarizes the contempt sanctions of UK, US, Singapore, Germany, France, and International Courts thereby providing each system’s characteristics at a glance. By introducing and analyzing the law of contempt of court in overseas jurisdictions, this research proposes a way to rebuild the rule of law that would guarantee the citizens a fair trial as a constitutional mandate: imposing various types of contempt sanctions on recalcitrant individuals who are regarded as to obstruct the administration of justice.

임시의 지위를 정하기 위한 가처분의 심리에 관한 몇 가지 모색적 시도

김연학 한국민사집행법학회 2008 民事執行法硏究 : 韓國民事執行法學會誌 Vol.4 No.-

임시의 지위를 정하기 위한 가처분은 가압류, 다툼의 대상에 관한 가처분 과 함께 민사집행법상 보전처분의 한 형태로서 규정되어 있으나, 다른 보전 처분과는 성격이 많이 다르고, 최근 상사분쟁이나 지적재산권분쟁과 관련하여 그 중요성이 새롭게 부각되고 있다. 임시의 지위를 정하기 위한 가처분의 체 계나 지위가 위와 같이 된 것은 그것이 연혁적으로 대륙법을 계수하였기 때 문인데, 국제거래계에서 사실상 준거법으로 자리 잡았을 뿐만 아니라, 앞서 본 바와 같은 현대적 분쟁의 해결에 더욱 적합한 면이 있다고 보이는 영미법 상의 금지명령(Injunction)과의 비교, 분석을 통해 내용상, 절차상 개선할 여 지가 적지 않다고 할 것이다. 내용적으로는 구체적인 사안별로 피보전권리와 보전의 필요성의 내용을 체계화할 필요가 있고, 절차적으로는 가처분 발령 이전의 임시처분으로서 TRO(Temporary Restraining Order), 제재방법으로서 법원모욕절차(Contempt of Court)의 도입가능성, 본안소송의 강제주의, 가처 분의 제3자에 대한 효력 부여 등을 검토해 볼 수 있겠다. An injunction - an order that an act be done or not be done -is considered an extraordinary remedy and is enforceable by the power of contempt. Injunctive relief may be granted on a provisional basis at a preliminary stage of the proceedings in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction depending on the time of issuance and duration. A preliminary injunction is issued after hearing on noticed motion. Its purpose is, at least theoretically and usually in fact, to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending trial on the merits. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, this article is intended to introduce the factors considered in granting preliminary injunctions in the U.S. judiciary, especially with respect to those in corporation and intellectual property litigation. Second, it focuses on presenting experimental ideas that we should consider the possibility of adopting the law of a preliminary injunction to Korean civil procedure, although it was first granted and developed in English courts.

명의개서 부당거절의 증명책임 및 판단기준

이준일 한국상사판례학회 2020 상사판례연구 Vol.33 No.3

In a per curiam decision by the Korean Supreme Court (Judgement 2015DA248342 dated March 23, 2017), the Court held that when a shareholder wishes to exercise its shareholder rights against a company, it must be first registered on the company’s shareholder register. If there is a discrepancy between a de jure shareholder (i.e., registered shareholder) and a de facto shareholder (i.e., shareholder in fact), then the de facto shareholder should request to the company to rectify the shareholder register so that it can exercise its shareholder rights as a registered shareholder. In case the company, however, unreasonably delays or refuses to rectify the shareholder register, the unregistered de facto shareholder may still exercise its rights. In light of the foregoing Supreme Court decision, we expect to have many cases where unregistered de facto shareholder still asserts to exercise its rights, arguing that the company is unreasonably delaying or refusing to rectify the shareholder register (the “Unreasonable Denial”). This dissertation analyzed the cases related to the Unreasonable Denial, and the common traits shared by most of such cases are: (i) necessity of speedy decision to protect unregistered de facto shareholder’s interest; (ii) company which is a party to the dispute has the authority to rectify the shareholder register at issue; and (iii) company’s internal reasons for denying rectification is not fully shared with the requesting shareholder. Against the backdrop of such traits shared by the Unreasonable Denial cases, this dissertation argues that the burden of proof on the unregistered shareholder to request the rectification should be reduced. Toward that end, this dissertation applies an indirect counterevidence theory whereby as long as the following conditions are met there is a presumption of the Unreasonable Denial and the company should overcome such presumption: (i) lawful purchase of shares; (ii) legitimate request made for the rectification of the shareholder register; and (iii) company’s denial of such rectification request. This dissertation also provides criteria for finding each of the foregoing element for Unreasonable Denial. As to whether a pending related litigation can justify delay in rectification, if the court’s order to rectify shareholder register (the “Court’s Order”) is regarded as an “ascertainment of intention of parties” under the Korean Civil Execution Act, then: (a) company’s refusal to rectify the shareholder register is not unreasonable when the facts remain disputed (i.e., the Court’s Order is not yet finalized); and (b) even when the Court’s Order becomes final, then the intention of the parties are “ascertained” by law, and thus, Unreasonable Denial cannot be established given the intentions of the parties have now been “ascertained”. Therefore, regarding the Court’s Order as an “ascertainment of intention of parties” leads to an absurd outcome of never being able to establish an Unreasonable Denial, and this is particularly problematic since it is the company, which is a party to the Court’s Order, and not a third-party institution, that is obligated to perform the rectification pursuant to the Court’s Order. If, however, the Court’s Order is not regarded as an “ascertainment of intention of parties”, then rendering injunctive reliefs remains possible, and if the company still does not rectify the shareholder register despite the injunction, then Unreasonable Denial can be established. It appears that, to date, much discussions have been focused on the possible actions for shareholders in case their request for shareholder register rectification is unreasonably denied, however, not much discussion have been devoted to the burden of proof or elements for establishing an Unreasonable Denial. Therefore, this dissertation aims to contribute in furtherance of discussions related to the burden of proof or elements for ... 대법원 2017. 3. 23. 선고 2015다248342 전원합의체 판결은, 회사에 대한 관계에서 주주권을 행사하기 위해서는 명의개서를 마쳐야 하나, 예외적으로 명의개서가 부당하게 지연 또는 거절되는 경우에는 명의개서 없이 주주권을 행사할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 이에 따라 명의개서 없이 주주권을 행사할 수 있는 예외사유인 명의개서 부당거절이 문제되는 사안이 많아질 것으로 예상된다. 명의개서 부당거절에 관한 기존 판례 사안을 분석함으로써 파악한 명의개서 부당거절 사안의 특성으로는 ① 명의개서 미필주주의 보호를 위해 신속한 판단이 필요하다는 점, ② 대립 당사자인 회사가 주주명부를 관리하고 명의개서를 진행한다는 점, ③ 명의개서 거절 사유 및 그 증빙자료가 회사에 편재되어 있다는 점이 있다. 이러한 명의개서 부당거절 사안의 특성을 고려하여 명의개서 미필주주의 증명책임을 완화할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 그 방안으로 간접반증이론을 적용하여 명의개서 미필주주가 ① 적법한 주식취득 사실, ② 적법한 명의개서 청구 사실, ③ 회사의 명의개서 거절 사실을 입증하면 회사의 명의개서 거절이 부당한 것으로 사실상 추정되어, 회사가 명의개서 거절의 정당화 사유를 반증하도록 하고, 각각의 요건사실별 판단기준을 제시하였다. 특히 명의개서절차이행판결이 확정되지 않았다는 사정을 명의개서 거절의 정당화 사유로 볼 수 있는지와 관련하여, 명의개서절차이행판결을 민사집행법상 ‘의사의 진술을 명하는 판결’로 보면 ㉮ 명의개서절차이행판결이 확정되지 않을 경우에는 실체적 권리관계에 대한 다툼이 있어 명의개서 부당거절의 성립이 부정되고, ㉯ 명의개서절차이행판결이 확정되면 그 확정과 동시에 의사를 진술한 것으로 간주되어 명의개서 부당거절의 개념 자체가 성립하지 않게 되는 불합리성이 있다. 또한 명의개서절차이행판결은 그 의무의 이행 주체가 판결의 당사자인 회사이므로 제3의 기관이 의무 이행 주체가 되는 ‘의사의 진술을 명하는 판결’과 다른 측면이 있다. 이에 명의개서절차이행판결이 ‘의사의 진술을 명하는 판결’에 해당하지 않는다고 해석함으로써 가집행선고의 가능성을 열어두고, 가집행선고에도 불구하고 회사가 명의개서를 하지 않을 경우에는 명의개서 부당거절의 성립된다는 해석론을 제시하였다. 명의개서 부당거절 시 명의개서 미필주주의 대응 방안에 관한 논의는 있었으나 명의개서 부당거절의 증명책임이나 판단기준에 관한 논의는 많지 않았던 것으로 보인다. 본 논문을 계기로 명의개서 부당거절의 증명책임이나 판단기준에 관한 논의가 심층적으로 이루어지기를 희망하는 바이다.

공정거래법의 사적(私的) 집행제도의 변경 및 그 보완방안 - 2000.5.7.자 및 6.23.자 정부제출안 및 2000년도 정기국회에서 통과예정인 안을 중심으로 -

김차동 ( Cha-dong Kim ) 한국경제법학회 2004 경제법연구 Vol.3 No.-

According to the proposed amendment bill, preliminarily announced by the Korea 亡air Trade Commission ( ‘KFTC’ ) on May 7, 2004, (KFTC revised the presumption clause for the amount of damages, from the proposed amendment bill of May 7, 2004, when submitting the revised proposal on June 23, 2004),one of the essential features of the proposed amendment bill is the dramatic improvement of the damage compensation system, the aim of which is to promote a system of private enforcement. This amendment bill has passed the competent standing committee, that is, the National Policy Committee in its original form as presented, as well as the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on November 30, 2004, and is awaiting the approval of the plenary session which is close at hand. The current system for damage compensation under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law ( ‘FTL’ ), which is a separate system from that under Article 750 of the Civil Code, is understood as providing a separate right to compensation, independent from the right to compensation under the Civil Code. This is because the former acknowledges strict liability, the principle that a corrective order should be final and conclusive, and a separate system of statute of limitation which period is shoter than that in the Civil Code, and it has been well established that the two claim rights, the damage compensation right in KFTL and in the Civil Code, are concurrent. However, the proposed amendment bill has induced the fundamental change of characteristics in the damage compensation system under FTL, by converting it into the same right to compensation as that under Article 750 of the Civil Code thus getting out of the current differences of the two rights to make an integrated right, although there has been an amendment which transfers the burden of proof for intentional and negligent conducts, which is different from the general principle of Article 750 of the Civil Code. In the course of this process, the provisions pertaining to the principle that a corrective order should be final and conclusive and the system of shorter period of the statute of limitation, as well as strict liability have all been removed. In addition, the system of the determination of damage amount awarded at the court’s discretion is to be newly established under the proposed amendment bill. This shows the legislative intention to promote private enforcement by the increasing of antitrust suits, thus extending the court’s discretionary power with respect to the acknowledgement of damage amount, as many have pointed out that the reason why there has only been a few antitrust suits claiming damages under the FTL, lies in the fact there have been many instances where it was impossible to meet the strict burden of proof required by the existing case law, regarding the calculation of damages. I, as a member of the TF Team for Study of System for the Promotion of Private Actions, organized under the initiative of the KFTC around 2002, have participated in a study for promotion of private antitrust suits under the FTL, such as improvement of the compensation system and introduction of claim for injunction, for a period of one year. With the knowledge gained from such activities, I would like to add some comments which may be helpful, regarding how the proposed amendment bill at hand will change the antitrust damage compensation, and whether such changes will fit the legislative intention to promote private actions, and thus provide an introduction to the many discussions interpretation thereof, which will no doubt arise during the process of execution of the amendments. Various proposals for revision to the amendment bill have been presented in the course of deliberation of the foregoing proposed amendment. Among them, the proposal by National Assembly member Seung-min Yu includes a clause concerning claims for injunction. There has been a doctrinal dispute concerning whether, even under the current system where no explicit provisions allow for injunction claims, it would be possible to claim for an injunction against conduct which is in violation of the FTL. The prevailing view, under Japanese influence, is that such claim is not allowable. Cases that acknowledge such claims coexist with those repudiating it in first instance cases, without any precedent at the level of the Supreme Court in this respect. The foregoing proposed revision to the amendment bill submitted by Mr. Yu, is a very desirable attempt which meets the current necessity of avoiding the uncertainty of these theories and precedents, while at the same time taking into account the need for the proper protection of the victims of FTL offenses. Nevertheless, because this proposed revision consists a single clause, it has resulted in an inadequate provision lacking in sufficient review concerning the appropriate procedures and supplementary provisions pursuant to the introduction of an injunction claim. Thus his proposal has failed in achieving its genuine intention, and is very unlikely to be legislated. Having reviewed the proposed amendment bill, it seems that as a result of being overly conscious of the criticism directed at the principle that a corrective order should be final and conclusive, before a damage claim by FTL is filing, it is attempting a fundamental reform by integrating the compensation system for antitrust damages under the FTL, which has so far been a separate claim, into the claim for compensation under Article 750 of the Civil Code, with the proviso of the acknowledgment of the transfer of burden of proof. Of course, in circumstances where one cannot but rely on Article 750 of the Civil Code to make a claim for compensation of antitrust damages, the proposed amendment bill is not without positive aspects that contribute to the promotion of private antitrust suits, through the transfer of the burden of proof. However, the current compensation system under the FTL has some advantages such as strict liability, acknowledgment of de facto power to presume offensive acts as illegal which are accused by the conclusive corrective orders, and a longer short-term statute of limitation, unlike that of Article 750 of the Civil Code, and thus is able to protect the victims more effectively than that of Article 750 of the Civil Code. It is regrettable that the original amendment prepared by the FTC, that is, the proposal of taking down the ‘final and conclusive corrective measures’ to the completion of the decision process at the level of the FTC, has been handed down during the negotiations among Ministries, in order to resolve the current problem that one may not claim for antitrust damages until the final judgment of the Supreme Court, which has been the biggest target for criticism. Given that the chief reason why the damage compensation system has not been actively in use lies in the difficulty of proving the amount of damages, the newly introduced system acknowledging the amount of damages is epochal event. It is the most prominent one among the amendments to the private action system. From the perspective that it is difficult to abstractly regulate diverse methods of estimation for the amount of damages, the amendment at hand places quite a large portion of it in the court’s discretion, that is the weight of evidence is to be determined at the court’s discretion, through the legal procedures. Thus, such matter has been left behind to be developed through the accumulation of judicial precedents. In the meantime, the amendment regarding injunction claims, despite the urgent necessity of its introduction, is required to be modified and supplemented, as it is too simple to provide details and still has many problems. In conclusion, in the case of the U.S., as the private enforcement sector, which enforces the fair trade law through claims for compensation and injunction, has been in active use, the private antitrust enforcement cases reportedly accounted for more than 90% of all enforcement cases. As such, I hope that our private enforcement system will also be activated through improvement so that market competition may thrive in our society.