면책제도에 관한 소고- 면책채무지급약정을 중심으로 -

송재우 부산대학교 법학연구소 2019 법학연구 Vol.60 No.4

The discharge of the bankrupt's liabilities in the bankruptcy procedure is very important, considering that the purpose and function of bankruptcy law is to assist the bankrupt with a fresh start via the release from of the excess liabilities. In Korean courts' precedents, the liabilities do not perish after the discharge in bankruptcy procedure, but is still maintained between the bankrupt and the creditor, with the restriction of right to litigation. Assuming that the liabilities still hold, the bankrupt may enter into a reaffirmation agreement for the liabilities which have been or would be discharged in the bankruptcy procedure with the specific creditor, in spite of discharge. However, the reaffirmation agreement has been interpreted to be null and void by the Korean courts. Such interpretation comes from the position that the main role of the bankruptcy is to lessen the burden of the liabilities owed by the bankrupt. However, the bankrupt may feel it necessary to enter into such reaffirmation agreement with the specific creditors, since the contractual relationship with, or the assistance from, the creditor is important for his ‘smooth financial rehabilitation’ after the completion of bankruptcy. In this regard, it would be recommendable to study the adoptability of the reaffirmation agreement into the Korean bankruptcy regulation system under the reasonable control with a the comparative study of the reaffirmation agreement.

근로기준법 제15조와 부당해고 구제법리 (부당해고 무효법리의 근거 문제 1)

고호성 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2020 서울법학 Vol.27 No.4

이 논문은 채무불이행책임론에 기반한 부당해고 구제법리의 구성을 시도한 것이다. 현재 이론・실무상 지배적인 강행규정 위반 법률행위 무효론을 근거로 하는 부당해고 무효법리와는 다른 새로운 대안을 제시하려는 것이다. 채무불이행책임론에 기반한 부당해고 구제법리 구성의 법적 근거로는 근로기준법 제15조(이 법을 위반한 근로계약), 특히 동조 제2항의 이른바 ‘보충적 효력’을 제시하였다. 근거 문제와 관련하여 제기될 수 있는 보충방식 문제, 채무적 효력 문제, ‘근로계약에 규정되지 아니한 사항’ 문제에 대한 해결방향도 제시하였다. 논문의 핵심적 내용은 채무불이행책임론적 구제방법의 내용을 구체화하는 부분이다. 기본적으로 손해배상과 강제이행의 문제를 다루었다. 강제이행에 대해서는 강제이행의 가능성 문제와 법률행위 부작위 채무 불이행 문제를 제기하였다. 특히 부당해고에 대한 해고무효 확인소송을 강제이행 방법으로 파악해야 함을 주장하였다. 이를 위해서 민법 제389조의 문제를 검토하였다. 손해배상에 대해서는 특히 장래손해 배상 문제를 제기하였다. 이 점과 연관하여 미국 판례법상 front pay 법리를 소개하였다. 중간수입 공제 문제에 대해서도 비교 목적으로 미국의 duty to mitigate 법리를 소개하였다. 채무불이행책임론에 기반한 부당해고 구제법리가 우리 노동현실과 이론・실무에서 지니는 의미도 검토하였다. 우리 노동현실에서 장래손해 배상이 해고무효를 대신할 수 있는 가능성이 크다는 점을 주장하였다. 이론・실무적으로는 구제청구의 과책요건 문제, 소멸시효 문제, 무효원용 문제, 포괄적 구제법리 구성 문제 등에 유용함을 주장하였다. 장래 연구과제로는 강행규정 위반 법률행위론에 근거한 부당해고 무효법리와 채무불이행책임론적 부당해고 구제법리의 관계 문제를 제시하였다. 민법 제103조 사회질서 위반 법률행위 무효법리에 주목하여 부당해고 구제법리의 전체적 재구성이 필요하다는 방향을 암시하였다. This paper attempts to construct an remedy theory about wrongful discharges, based on contract liability. It aims to propose a new alternative to the invalidity theory of wrongful discharges dominant on the current legal theory and practices, which is based on the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the compulsory clause. The legal basis for the composition of the remedy theory about wrongful discharges based on contract liability was presented in the Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act (labour contract in violation of this act), in particular the so-called “supplementary effect” in paragraph 2 of the Article. In addition, I have addressed the issues of supplementary methods, claim effect, and items not covered by labor contracts that may be raised in relation to the legal basis of this remedy theory. The core content of this paper is to specify the contents of the contract liability remedies about wrongful discharges. Basically, the issues of damages and specific performances were dealt with. As for specific performances, the issues of the possibility of these performances and the breach of contract not to do something were raised. In particular, I insisted that a confirmation lawsuit for the invalidity of wrongful dismissals should be identified as a method of specific performances. To this end, the issue of the Article 389 of the Civil Code was examined. As for damages, in particular, the issue of future damages was raised. In this regard, I introduced the front pay issues of the US common law. For the purpose of comparison, I also introduced the conception of duty to mitigate of the US common law. I also examined the implications of this remedy theory about wrongful discharges, based on contract liability in our employment reality and legal theory and practice. In our employment practices, I argued that future damages could replace the reinstatement based on the discharge invalidity theory. Theoretically and practically, I argued that this remedy theory would be useful for the problems of responsibility requirements, extinction aging, invalidity submission and comprehensive remedy theory. For future research, I presented the correlation problems of the wrongful discharge invalidity theory based on the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the compulsory clause and the wrongful discharge remedy theory based on the contract liability. I implied the necessity of the total reconstruction of the wrongful discharge law, paying attention to the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the social order based on the Article 103 of the Civil Code.This paper attempts to construct an remedy theory about wrongful discharges, based on contract liability. It aims to propose a new alternative to the invalidity theory of wrongful discharges dominant on the current legal theory and practices, which is based on the invalidity theory of legal acts in violation of the compulsory clause. The legal basis for the composition of the remedy theory about wrongful discharges based on contract liability was presented in the Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act (labour contract in violation of this act), in particular the so-called “supplementary effect” in paragraph 2 of the Article. In addition, I have addressed the issues of supplementary methods, claim effect, and items not covered by labor contracts that may be raised in relation to the legal basis of this remedy theory. The core content of this paper is to specify the contents of the contract liability remedies about wrongful discharges. Basically, the issues of damages and specific performances were dealt with. As for specific performances, the issues of the possibility of these performances and the breach of contract not to do something were raised. In particular, I insisted that a confirmation lawsuit for the invalidity of wrongful dismissals should be identified as a method of specific performances. To this end, the issue of the Article 389...

면책 주장과 기판력 및 청구이의의 소 — 대법원 2022. 7. 28. 선고 2017다286492 판결에 대한 평석 —

현낙희 한국민사소송법학회 2022 민사소송 Vol.26 No.3

Once a judgment has been finalized on a cause of action, parties are precluded from raising pleadings in support of, or defense to avoid the cause of action, which have existed prior to the final judgment but have not been submitted during the litigation. In the same vein, debtor cannot bring up pre-existing defense to object the execution based on the final judgment(Civil Execution Code Article 44②). During the lawsuit brought by the creditor seeking for monetary payment of his/her claim, if the debtor has not raised the fact that he/she has already been discharged, could the debtor later file an objection suit against the execution claiming that he/she has been discharged? The Supreme Court allowed this in 2017Da286492 case. In order to offer strong protection to the debtor, the Supreme Court analogized discharge to qualified acceptance of inheritance, and took the same approach. Namely, the scope of liability is irrelevant to the cause of action, and unless it is raised by the parties during the litigation, it does not become a matter to be decided upon, and therefore bringing up the issue of discharge, which releases the debtor from liability, is not precluded by res judicata effect of the prior judgment. However, the Supreme Court case law regarding qualified acceptance of inheritance is inconsistent and does not conform with the jurisprudence in procedural rules. Such conclusion was inevitable in the case of qualified acceptance of inheritance, as it was necessary to protect the heir who had to inherit the decedent’s debt which he/she was unaware of and had no reasons attributable to. On the other hand, the rationale for the debtor is less compelling, since it was his/her debt which he/she was supposed to be liable with his/her entire asset, yet has been discharged due to special consideration. Also, the substantive and procedural treatment regarding discharge is quite different from that of the qualified acceptance of inheritance. Moreover, 2017Da286492 judgment forces the creditor to relitigate on the same issue just because the debtor did not submit discharge defense during the prior lawsuit. In order to maintain procedural fairness and legal certainty, in principle the debtor should not be allowed to bring up pre-existing discharge defense in order to file an objection suit against execution because it is precluded by the res judicata of the prior judgment. As for the exceptional cases in which the debtor needs to be protected, good faith principle could be applied and the special circumstances of the debtor should be considered as a factor.

상법상 회사분할로 인한 과징금 책임의 승계

김건식(Kim Gun-Sic) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2010 東亞法學 Vol.- No.48

본고는 상법상 회사분할에 따른 독점규제 및 공정거래법 위반의 과징금 납부책임 귀속관계에 관하여 새로운 입법론을 제시한다. 먼저 어느 회사가 공정거래법을 위반하였지만 과징금 부과 처분을 받지 않은 상태에서 상법상 회사분할에 따라 분할하거나 재분할 하는 경우, 현행 관련법 규정과 대법원 판례의 법리로서는 과징금 책임을 부과하기에 적합한 대상이 존재하지 않는다는 문제를 제기한다. 서론에서 회사분할제도의 법리 및 책임관계와 과징금 부과 처분의 승계여부에 대해 검토한 후, 이어 미국에서 독점규제법 위반 책임을 회피하기 위해 회사변경제도를 이용하였던 여러 사례를 소개한 뒤, 관련 판례법의 법리와 입법 제정 과정을 역사적 순서로 고찰해 본다. 결국 한국의 법 이론과 대법원 판례 및 미국법의 법리를 검토해 볼 때 회사분할에 따른 공정거래법 위반 책임을 귀속시키기 위해서는 관련 규정의 신설 입법에 의한 해결이 자명함을 설명한다. 본고에서는 새로운 입법론을 제시함에 있어 회사분할제도에 따른 국세납부의무를 규정한 현행 국세기본법을 참조할 것을 제안한다. 하지만, 상법에서 회사분할제도를 도입하게 된 취지를 고려하여 회사가 분할되기 전 어느 시점까지 발생한 사유로 책임을 지울 수 있는 지에 대한 책임의 성립시점과 과징금 처분의 부과 종기시점은 국세기본법이나 관련 공정거래법규정보다 다소 단축하여 3년으로 제한 할 것을 제시한다. 제안입법은“공정거래위원회는 과징금을 부과 받은 회사 및 회사가 분할되거나 분할합병, 또는 분할 및 분할합병으로 해산하는 경우 분할일 또는 분할합병일 이전으로부터 3년 전까지 발생한 공정거래법 위반행위에 대하여 과징금 부과처분을 할 수 있고, 다음 각호의 회사는 과징금에 대해 연대하여 납부할 책임을 진다. 1. 피분할회사 2. 분할 또는 분할합병으로 설립되는 회사 3. 피분할회사의 일부가 다시 분할하거나 다른 회사와 합병하여 그 다른 회사가 존속하는 경우 재분할된 분할회사 및 피분할회사, 그리고 합병으로 존속하는 분할합병의 상대방회사 4. 해산의 경우 분할이나 분할합병으로 설립된 회사 또는 존속하는 분할합병의 상대방 회사.”이다. 제안하는 바와 같이 입법이 이루어진다면, 현재까지 회사분할로 인한 과징금 책임의 귀속주체가 분명하지 않아 법 위반행위가 존재함에도 제재를 가할 수 없었던 불합리한 점을 해결할 수 있을 것이다. This article analyzes legal regimes of successor corporate liability when a corporation received penalty surcharge by Fair Trade Commission after the corporation was already divided into another corporations otherwise dissolved. In this instance, the question is who bears the penalty surcharge liability which established prior to the date of its corporate division. Contingent corporation or new divided corporation? In general, it would be appropriate that both contingent corporation and new divided corporation have liability with regard to the penalty surcharge according to their division agreement. However, until now, there is no right answer to cover such liabilities. Because the liability which is above mentioned is grounded upon an unclear mixture of Corporation Act, FTC's regulations and Supreme Court decision. Moreover, if the contingent corporation divided again or closed their business, who bears responsibility for penalty surcharge relating to pre-distribution periods? And it is also unclear what date shall be executed to the previous wrongdoing prior to the filing of any charges. In order to solve these questions, in the United States Court ruled by common law but, in the end, most states have enacted regulations regarding successor corporate liability to provide clear answer. Because of the somewhat vague notions of derivate corporate liabilities based on the Corporation Act, FTC's regulations and Supreme Court decision, this article attempts to propose new enactment on the Korean FTC regulation. The proposal is that “The Fair Trade Commission shall discharge corporate successor liabilities of illegal activities against contingent corporation, new divided corporation, or new divided corporation's opposite corporation either prior to or within 3 years after the date of its division.” With this proposal, corporations may not evade penalty surcharge liability through corporate division, even if the division occurs before discharge.

環境責任과 倒産節次

李縯甲(Yeonkab Lee) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2018 江原法學 Vol.54 No.-

환경법의 기본 원칙 중 하나인 오염원인자 책임의 원칙은 도산절차에서의 채권자평등 원칙과 채무자의 재기라는 도산절차의 목적과 충돌한다. 어떤 채무자가 환경오염을 발생시킨 뒤 그에 대하여 도산절차가 개시되면 환경책임이 다른 도산책임과 동등한 지위에 있는지 아니면 우선권이 인정되는지, 환경책임이 도산절차에서 면책될 수 있는지, 도산관재인이 오염된 토지나 오염물질배출시설을 도산재단에서 포기할 수 있는지 등의 문제에서 그러한 충돌을 볼 수 있다. 이 논문은 이러한 충돌문제에 대하여 채무자회생법의 해석론으로 해결하는 방법을 제시하고 있다. 필자의 주장에 의하면 환경책임이 도산절차 개시 전의 원인으로 인한 것이라면 도산채권이 되고, 법률의 규정 없이 이를 공익채권 내지 재단채권으로 격상시킬 수 없다. 또한 도산채권에 해당하는 한 도산절차에서의 면책에 의해 환경책임도 그 책임을 면할 수 있다. 이와 달리 환경책임이 면책되지 않게 하려면 이를 비면책채권으로 규정하여야 한다. 마지막으로 환경오염의 정화비용이 과다하여 당해 재산을 계속관리하는 것보다 재단에서 포기하는 것이 더 도산채권자들에게 이익이 된다면 이를 재단에서 포기하여야 한다. 이와 달리 재단에서 포기하지 못하게 하려면 역시 그러한 취지의 규정을 두어야 한다. 이처럼 이 충돌문제는 해석에 의해서는 만족할만한 해답을 구할 수 없으며, 입법조치에 의해 해결되는 것이 바람직하다. One of the fundamental principle of environmental law is “polluter should pay”. On the other hand, all creditors should be fairly and equitably treated and the “fresh start” policy is paramount in bankruptcy law. If a debtor dumps waste on her land and filed a bankruptcy procedure without cleaning up the land, the two principles are in conflict with each other. In this Article, the author tries to guide the readers through the various stages of bankruptcy procedure to suggest a more reasonable interpretation of the Korean bankruptcy code on this matter. First, the environmental claims should be treated as bankruptcy claims when the essential components of the claim arose before the filing. Moreover, if the expenditure of the bankruptcy estate does not improve the value of the property, it should not be treated as “adnmistrative claims.” Second, if the environment claims are pre-petiton, they should be discharged in the bankruptcy proceedings. Korean bankruptcy code provides exceptions to the rule that all pre-petion claims should be discharged unless the plan says otherwise, but the environment claims does not fall in that category of exceptions. Third, the trustee’s right to abandon the burdensome property from the estate should not be overly limited because it serves the purpose of the bankruptcy proceedings. Unless the environmental hazard poses imminent harm to public, the bankruptcy trustee may decide whether she abandon the property burdened with environmental liabilities.

The Law on Warranties in Marine Insurance: The Problems of English Law and Some Proposals for Reform

최두원,이재성 한국해양비즈니스학회 2015 해양비즈니스 Vol.- No.30

Due to the strict feature of warranties, many disputes and problems have arisen. First of all, the insurer asks the insured strictly comply with warranties that are not material to the risk and has a right to discharge the liabilities after any breach of a warranty. Next, the insurer can be entitled to discharge from the claim even though the breach is irrelevant to the loss. And then, it is severe that the insured can seek the remedy after the proof of compliance with a warranty as a condition precedent. Therefore, this paper analyses the problems of marine insurance warranties in English law that are unique and different from continental marine insurance law, and looks into ways of reform of the law of warranties. Firstly, this paper explores the current problems of marine insurance warranties to clarify the importance of the remodeling of the rules of warranties. Secondly, this paper looks into the other countries’ legal frameworks of warranties to gain the implications of that works. Lastly, this paper proposes some ways to reform the current marine insurance warranties in English law through comparing to different works to reform the regime of warranties in other countries.

출자전환으로 취득하는 주식의 취득가액에 관한 연구

배영석,김병일 한국세무학회 2017 세무학 연구 Vol.34 No.3

출자전환은 채권자가 가지고 있는 금전채권을 출자로 전환하여 주식을 취득하는 것이므로 자본을 증가시키는 자본거래의 성질을 지닌다. 출자전환에서 주금을 납입하는 출자전환자(채권자)와 주금을 납입받는 피출자전환자(채무자)는 동전의 앞뒤와 같은 관계이므로 출자전환에 따른 주금 납입액을 같은 법리로 다루어야 타당할 것으로 생각되나 현행 세법의 규정은 그렇지 않다. 현행 세법은 출자전환 당사자 간에 같게 취급해야 할 것을 당사자가 누구인가에 따라 달리 취급하고 있어 여러 가지 문제가 발생하고 있다. 즉, ① 출자전환채권자와 피출자전환채무자 간에 주금 납입액을 세무상 같은 논리로 처리하지 않고 있고, ② 피출자전환법인이 일반법인이냐 구조조정법인이냐에 따라 채권자의 주식취득가액을 다르게 규정하고 있으며, ③ 기업회생절차에서는 출자전환가액 중 주식의 시가 초과액을 채무자로부터는 회수할 수 없어도 보증인 등으로부터는 회수할 수 있음에도 이를 무시하고 세무처리하고 있고, ④ 구조조정법인에 대한 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 채권의 장부가액으로 하여 채권 전액이 그대로 주식취득가액으로 전환된 것으로 하였는데도 채권자는 채무자에게 채무면제익이 된 금액(주식 시가초과액)을 배당 등의 형태로 되돌려 받을 수 있게 되는 등 이해하기 어려운 여러 가지 문제점이 실무상 나타나고 있다. ⑤ 뿐만 아니라 일반법인과 구조조정법인 간에 채권자의 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 달리 하도록 규정하여 차별하고 있음에 따라 취득원가를 규정한 현행 「법인세법 시행령」이 무효라는 주장도 제기되고 있다. 따라서 이러한 제반 문제점을 해결하기 위하여 출자전환 시 일반법인이든 구조조정법인이든 이를 구별하지 않고 채권자의 주식취득가액을 ‘출자전환하는 채권의 장부가액’으로 하도록 「법인세법 시행령」 제72조 제2항 제4호의2를 개정해야 할 것이다. 대손상각한 채권을 출자전환하는 경우에 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 어떻게 결정할 것인가를 두고 출자전환 채권가액으로 해야 한다는 견해, 세무상 장부가액으로 해야 한다는 견해, 출자전환주식의 시가액으로 해야 한다는 견해 등으로 나뉘는데, 대손상각한 채권을 출자전환하는 것은 ‘당초 대손처리한 것을 취소(수정)하는 회수거래’와 ‘출자전환하는 거래’라는 2가지 거래로 구성되어 있다고 보아야 하므로 이 경우 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 출자전환 채권가액으로 하는 것이 타당하다. 구조조정법인에 대한 금전채권을 중도에 권면액 이하의 가액으로 매수한 자가 당해 구조조정법인에 출자전환할 때 채권의 권면액이 출자전환가액으로 인정되는 경우에 중도 매수자의 출자전환주식의 취득가액을 매수가액으로 해야 하는지 권면액으로 해야 하는지에 관해서는 매수가액이 출자전환채권자의 장부가액이므로 이 가액을 취득가액으로 하는 것이 타당하다. 이렇게 입법론적으로 개선되고 해석론적으로 명확히 정립되면 출자전환에 관한 현행 세무상 문제점이 해결되고 또한 출자전환 시 세무처리가 간결하게 되어 실무상 혼선의 발생을 방지하게 될 것이다. A Debt-Equity Swap transaction is the conversion of creditors’ monetary claims into an investment in the target company (debtor) by acquiring the target company’s stocks. Therefore a Debt-Equity Swap is a type of capital transaction because it is increasing the target company’s capital. In a Debt-Equity Swap, creditors (investor) who convert their claims and/or rights into the target company stocks, and debtors (investees) who have liabilities receive investments from creditors, so this transaction is like two sides of the same coin.Therefore, these kinds of transactions should be considered the same as capital investments. However, it is not treated as a stocks transaction under the current taxation law. Under the current tax law, there is different taxation treatment depending on who is the investor and investee and some issues in here as forth below. 1)Creditors (investors) who convert their claims into stocks and debtors (investees) who owe liabilities are not regulated under same theory of stocks investment. 2)A creditors’ acquisition of stock value is regulated differently depending on the target company’s character i.e., whether it is a normal business company or a company under procedures of rehabilitation. 3)Under the procedures of corporate rehabilitation, corporation tax law recognizes bad debt expenses on loss of claims for the creditor even though creditors can recover from a guarantor (surety obligator) if the creditor cannot recover from debtor any excess of market value of stock price among their claims on debt-equity swap procedures. 4)Because the acquired stocks of creditors is priced the same as full book value of creditors’ claims or rights in case of debt-equity swap, all of creditors’ claims converted into the acquiring target company’s newly issued stocks at same value. However, creditors can still recover in the form of dividends which is the same amount of debt’s profit by the discharge of indebtedness (excess of market price of stock) at a later date. This kind of tax treatment may create some problems and disputes. 5)According to the Enforcement Decree of Corporative Tax Act, the acquiring stocks valuation for the creditors at the debt-equity swap are regulated differently between a normal company and the company in rehabilitation. Some insist this differential treatment of Enforcement Decree of Corp. Tax Act raises constitutional infringement issues. Accordingly, in order to solve these kinds of issues, Article of 72 (2) 4-2 of Enforcement Decree of Corporative Tax Act should be revised such that the valuation of creditors’ acquisition stocks should be the same as the book value of claims which is converted into investment stocks whether the company is in rehabilitation or is normal company without different treatment on the debt-equity swap. In case of creditor’s claims which are already treated as bad debt expenses by the creditors, there are some different opinions for the pricing of the acquisition value of stocks of the newly converted into target company stock at the debt-equity swap as follows. -Acquisition value of stocks should be the same as creditors’ claims amount. -Book value of creditors’ claims should be the acquisition value of stocks for tax purposes. -Acquisition value of stock is the market value of newly acquired stocks from debt-equity swap. We may consider two kinds of transactions involved here in which claims were already treated as bed debt expenses converted into the target company’s stock. One is recovery of bad debt transaction i.e. cancelation (or amendment) of bad debt. The other is debt-equity swap transaction. Therefore a reasonable view of this transaction is the acquisition stock value should be the same as the creditors’ claims amount on debt-equity swap. If the face value of claims is deemed at the acquiring stocks price on the debt-equity swap for the creditor, and then, the third p...

적하보험에 있어서 피보험자의 감항능력담보의무에 관한 고찰

양석완 한국경영법률학회 2011 經營法律 Vol.21 No.3

There are certain preliminary essential condition which must be complied with in order to render the insurer liable under a contract of marine cargo insurance. They are not expressed but they are tacitly implied, and are therefore termed 'implied warranty', which are warranty of seaworthiness of ship and warranty of legality. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is a warranty which is understood by law to exist in the contract without being expressly stated. In this paper, a new approachment was made in respect of the warranty of seaworthiness : that is cargoworthiness of the ship, particularly focused on the reasonable fitness to carry the good or other movables to the destination contemplated by the policy, which is concerned with her capability to carry the particular cargo in question, commonly referred to as the cargoworthiness under Article 40(2) in Maritime Insurance Act, 1906. In the event of a breach of warranty, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach. However, the breach of warranty does not inevitably discharge the insurer from liability, for it is always open to an insurer to waive the breach and therby affirm the continuance of the contract. An insurer can certainly, by his conduct, be estopped from pleading as having been discharged from liability under the Seaworthiness Admitted Clause and Unseaworthiness & Unfitness Exclusion Clause in the Institute Cargo Clauses. It is conclusion of this paper that in the present time, the insurance warranty, especially the implied warranty for the seaworthiness of the assured would be complied with not strictly but with flexibility, and the limitation of an insurer's right of the breach of the warranty.

부당해고의 불법행위책임론적 구제법리

고호성(Ho Sung Koh) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2022 法學硏究 Vol.33 No.1

임차 건물의 화재로 인한 임차인의 손해배상책임- 대법원 2017. 5. 18. 선고 2012다86895, 86901 전원합의체 판결 -

신봉근 고려대학교 법학연구원 2018 고려법학 Vol.0 No.88

원인 불명의 화재로 인해서 임차 건물과 임차 외 건물 부분이 소훼된 경우, 임대차계약은 종료되고 임차인은 목적물 반환채무의 이행불능으로 인한 손해배상책임을 지게 된다. 이 경우, 임차인은 손해배상책임을 면하려면 목적물의 보존에 관한 선량한 관리자의 주의의무를 다했음과 귀책사유 없음을 입증해야 하는데, 이에 관한 입증은 쉽지 않으며 민법 제390조의 해석만을 근거로 입증책임을 임차인에게 떠넘기는 것은 합당하지 않다. 즉, 입증책임은 분배될 필요가 있으며, 입증책임의 부담은 임차물의 ‘지배·관리 영역’이라는 기준에 의해서 판단해야한다. 이는 임대인 또한 목적물에 대해서 사용·수익에 필요한 상태를 유지할 의무가 있다는 사실과 관련이 있을 것이다. 한편, 임차인의 손해배상책임의 범위와 관련하여, 임차인이 임차 건물 외 부분의 손해에 대해서도 책임을 지는지에 대해서, 불가분의 일체라는 이유로 당연히 책임을 지는 것은 합당하지 않다. 즉, 규범적으로 판단하여 임차 건물의 화재와 상당인과관계에 있으며, 통상손해이거나 임차인이 예견할 수 있는 특별손해에 대해서만 배상할 책임이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다. 그리고 이에 관한 사항 및 임차인의 선관주의의무와 귀책사유에 관한 입증책임은 임대인이 져야한다. If the whole building including the leased part is interrupted by an unknown fire, the lease is terminated and the lessee is liable for damages caused by the inability to fulfill the obligation to return. In this case, the lessee shall be liable for the proof about the obligation of the competent administrator's care and the infallibility to avoid the liability for damages. But it is very difficult, and it unreasonable to pass the burden of proof on the basis of the interpretation of article 390 of the civil code. That is, the burden of proof needs to be distributed and the burden of proof shall be determined according to the criteria of the 'control and management area' of the leased object. This may also be relevant to the fact that the lessor is obliged to repair and maintain the necessary conditions for use and profit on the object. On the other hand, in relation to the extent to which the lessee is liable for damages, it is not reasonable for him to assume the responsibility for damages outside of the leased premises for the reason why it is indivisible. That is, it should be judged that there is a equivalent cause-and-effect relationship to the fire of a leased building, and that he should assume the liability only for the ordinary damages, or for special damages that may be predicted by him. In addition, the burden of proof concerning the duty of the competent administrator's care and negligence shall be assumed to lessor.