유치권의 성립요건으로서 물건과 채권간의 견련성

김준호 한국민사법학회 2011 民事法學 Vol.54 No.1

1. The article 320 of Korean civil law provided 「bond concerned about the things」, which was from the article 295 of Japan civil law. This Japan Civil Law that had been influenced by French Civil Law acknowledged lien as real rights granted by way of security. Nevertheless, in terms of correlation between bonds and things, we acknowledged the article 273 of German civil law which recognized bond-like right of payment denial. Duality theory which was predominant this time admits ‘① bond generated by object itself’ and ‘② bond generated by the right of return claim of object or legal and factional relations.’ (For your reference, ‘①’ falls within the article 273-2 of German civil law, and ‘②’ falls under the article 273-1 of German civil law. Article 273 of German Civil Law provides a lien as ‘bond-like right of payment denial’, and is not binding upon the third party based on a real right of things. However, our Korean Civil Law has a binding effect on the third party since we acknowledged the provision regarding lien as a real right of things. Thus, some problems would occur if we bring the viewpoint of German Civil Law into the ours as the standard of judgment of the conditions of lien, since we recognize a lien as a real right, which have an absolute binding effect upon third parties. 2. In terms of the lien as the statutory real right granted by way of security under Korean Civil Law, considering that it involves possession of the object until the debt is paid where there is no value in exchange, and is not regulated under the Law of Reality where superiority and inferiority are determined by the order of the completion of real rights, the standard of judgment of the conditions of lien should be carefully determined through comparative study of other legal principles and work of the interest balancing method. According to that fact, the ‘②’ mentioned above has problems as a general standard for the conditions of lien since it has many exceptions to the lien, and even in case of accepting that idea, it is less likely to admit the second theory since it infringes on another mortgagee’s right to be paid and the safety of business. Furthermore, it also could be achieved through the right of objection based on performance at the same time. Considering the lien having special characteristics and the fact that the third party (a possessor or a mortgagee) should not be applied against,judging the correlations between bonds and a thing as the conditions of lien, range of bonds should be limited to ‘①, bond generated by object itself.’ Further, in terms of the right to demand compensation based on the thing itself, the possessor should be liable for the wrongful acts. 3. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court provided two standards for the conditions of lien under the first theory ‘①’ as the predominant opinion in this issue. Facts are as follows. C entered into a subcontract with B on window construction of apartment houses which provide 56 residents. The money C spent on has been occurred from the construction of the apartment houses, thus, C could put a lien on that. And when C insists a claim of lien while possessing D’s house, it would be resolved by applying the principle of indivisibility. Therefore, using the second standard ‘② bond generated by the right of return claim of object or legal and factional relations’ to judge the conditions of lien is unnecessary and does not have actual profits. Thus, it is not proper to set the second opinion as a standard for judging the conditions of lien.

부동산담보신탁에서의 수익권의 성질에 대한 검토

김원순 ( Wonsoon Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.4

As real estate trusts for security purposes(hereinafter “real estate security trust”) are used as a key collateral in real estate project finance, many disputes have arisen and social costs are increasing. In order to increase the legal stability and predictability of transactions, it is necessary to further develop existing discussions about the beneficiary’s rights in real estate security trusts that have not yet been clarified. While the Supreme Court appears to have adopted the majority opinion that views beneficiary rights as personal rights, it is not appropriate to apply a single legal theory or doctrine uniformly to all kinds of trust relationships. It is necessary to understand the nature of the beneficiary rights differently and adjust or adapt doctrines, considering the attributes of each trust contract. The nature of the beneficiary right should not be determined upon the dichotomy between doctrines of personal rights and property rights. Rather it should be examined, while understanding contractual relationship of the real estate security trust through proper interpretation of trust agreements and formulating the most appropriate legal doctrines that can fully appreciate the attributes of such trust contract. Even if the trust system is a very flexible system, it is not possible to freely determine the contents of a trust contract indefinitely upon the agreement between the parties, and as a limitation, consistency with the existing legal system is required. Considering the absence of the equity law in the judicial system of the Republic of Korea, it is hard to resolve every trust-related issue by legislation. The nature of trust contract relationship should be investigated through formation of the court's active case law, and more limits on freedom of contract content are needed. When forming the security trust-related legal principles, it should be considered that the beneficiary right has both personal right-like character and real property right-like character and that the real estate security trust beneficiary’s rights perform a collateral function. In particular, it has properties similar to the non-standard collateral, so-called Yangdo-dambo, so it may be possible to apply some analogy of Yangdo-dambo legal principles to those of real estate security trust. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da225809 decided on Jun. 22, 2017, was the case about the fate of beneficiary rights in real estate security trust when secured loan was transferred to a third party, following the court’s assign order. While the court treated whether separation of beneficiary’s rights and secured claims is allowed as a problem that should be determined upon individual trust contracts, this paper suggests that it is necessary to establish the limit of nature of beneficiary rights that separation of secured bonds and beneficiary rights is not allowed. Beneficiary rights, separated from secured bonds, have only a limited economic meaning and destabilize the legal status of the parties. Although it is important to widely recognize freedom of contracts, it is desirable to force secured bonds and beneficiary rights to be traded together to avoid the uncertainty of the contractual relationship, occurrence of unintended consequences. In the Seoul High Court en banc Decision 2017Na2036022 decided on Jan. 17, 2018, the court ruled that only the beneficiary rights are transferred, and the beneficiary status, including obligations by the trustee, is not transferred. This paper criticizes the court’s approach. It is questionable how the beneficiary right and the beneficiary status can exist separately, and what will be its economic and legal outcome. This also goes against the indivisibility of beneficiary rights.

부동산거래관련법의 이론적 접근

정신교(Jeong, Shin Kyo),이창석(Lee, Chang Suck) 한국부동산학회 2011 不動産學報 Vol.44 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The transaction in the real estate is the legal act that occurs on the real estate right. The objective of this study is to examine the public regulations and the laws on the real estate transaction, and to review the their contents. (2) RESEARCH METHOD To achieve the research objective, this study performed the literature review. The literature included related books, papers and government publications. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS The results of this study indicated the significance and classification of the real estate, the background of the regulations on the real estate transactions and the theoretical approaches on the laws of real estate. 2. RESULTS The imposing the certain restrictions on the real estate transactions is to raise the unstable effects of land transactions, and is to intended to operate the real esate preferably. The details of the public regulations on the real estate include the various special laws on the real estate and government supervision and licensing/permission. The judicial regulations on the real estate transactions include civil laws and various special civil laws. Above all, the most important one in the real estate transactions is that a harmony should be preceded between the public and private parts. To do so, while ensuring the private autonomy on the real estate transactions, the public regulation should be supplemented.

특허권 및 전용실시권의 개념 재정립

정차호(Jung, Cha-Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.3

On the question whether, under the current Korean patent law, a patent right contains a self-exploitation right as well as an exclusive right, this paper negatively answers on following reasons: (1) the Patent Act cannot bestow the inventor applicant with the self-exploitation right which was originally and already his/her right under the natural right theory, (2) TRIPs Agreement Art. 28 prescribes patent right as an exclusive right, (3) other countries, such as the U.S.A. and China, clearly explain so and (4) especially the European Patent Office clearly explains that it is a common misconception that a patent gives its owner the right to make use of his invention. Based on such reasons, this paper strongly proclaims that relevant articles of the Korean Patent Act, such as articles 94, 98, 100, 102, be accordingly amended. If the patent right is a mere exclusive right without self-exploitation right, the right of an exclusive licensee must be within such patent right. Then, to answer the concept of an exclusive license right, this paper further comparatively analyzes laws of the U.S.A., France, Germany and the U.K. Based such study, it could be concluded that (1) the U.S.A. determines exclusive license right not based on the face name of a license agreement but based on assignment of all substantial rights, (2) France puts the exclusive license slightly under the patent right, (3) Germany does over the patent right and (4) the U.K. positions an exclusive license right as the same as the patent right. Current Korean Patent Act seems to follow the U.K. style, considering that many provisions put "or exclusive licensee" after "patentee". If the Korean Patent Act positions the exclusive license right as the same as the patent right, an exclusive licensee may be considered to have the same right as a co-owner of the patent right. Then, determining whether an exclusive licensee alone has standng for a lawsuit, we can look whether a co-owner alone has standing in the same situation. Unfortunately, however, current Korean law is not clear on the standing of a co-owner alone. Therefore, to determine standing of an exclusive licensee, we must wait until the standing issue of a co-owner be resolved.

유치권의 견련관계에 관한 일고찰

남윤봉(Nam Yoon Bong),이현석(Lee Hyun Seok) 한양법학회 2007 漢陽法學 Vol.21 No.-

Lien refers to right that a person who occupy the thing by legal or realistic relation having bond connected with some thing can continue to occupy thing until own bond is paid by fundamental rule of equity. In short, it is basic motive that the person, even if he is sharing duty that deliver the thing to another person, can occupy continuously the thing without delivering until get satisfaction of the bond, because it is improper to be forced to perform only footway duty one-sidely when he has the fixed bond that happened regarding the thing. Specially important part is discussion about relation between bond and ‘thing or securities’(speak that is ‘thing’ from lower part) in coming into being important matter of lien. Civil law article 320 1 clause is prescribing 「In case have bond that occur about the thing, can invite the thing until receive payment of the bond」, but because specific standard to recognize the connection-relation between thing and bond was not presented, problem happens in applying on actuality example. Multitude theory of our country ⅰ) when bond happens from object itself, ⅱ) When bond happens from law relation or equal truth relation such as return claim of object, recognizes the relation. We can know that this is trying to limit while trying to recognize relation extensively. However, there is difficulty whether this standard is applicable substantially when we must foretell coming into being important matter of lien availability besides specific law relation or truth relation.

貨物相換證의 物權的 效力에 관한 小考* - 증권의 교부와 운송물의 인도에 대한 해석을 중심으로 -

김동민 한국경영법률학회 2011 經營法律 Vol.21 No.2

The consignment sheet is the securities that is representative of a claim for delivery of the freight. If the consignment sheet is delivered to a holder in due course of the consignment sheet, it happens that come into force the same effect as freight's delivery about the acquisition of the right on the freight. This provision in Commercial Law § 133 is effective and well-directed. This effect on Commercial Law § 133 is the real right's validity on the consignment sheet, and in this way the consignment sheet is named the 'Traditionpapier'. But there are many different theories about how to explain the real right's validity on the consignment sheet. For example, there are ① 'absolute theory', ② 'strict relative theory', ③ 'representative theory', ④ 'modified relative theory' (securities' effect theory) and so on. Although ③ 'representative theory' is a predominance doctrine, it is lacked the concrete explain for the meaning of the 'representative' in connection with the transfer of a direct possession or indirect possession at the Civil Law. And It is wrong that by virtue of ① 'absolute theory' the delivery of a consignment sheet means the transfer of a direct possession, and on the ground of ② 'strict relative theory' the delivery of a consignment sheet means the transfer of an indirect possession. Consequently, ④ 'modified relative theory' falls in with the legislation purpose of Commercial Law and is suited to the analytical research on Civil Law. In Civil Law, A method for transfer the possession is real delivery, summary delivery, agreement on possession, delivery of the right to request a return. So then it is appropriate that the delivery of a consignment sheet is constructed a new method for transfer the possession in Commercial Law as such an extraordinary processes along with a method for transfer the possession accepted by Civil Law.

화물인도지시서(D/O)의 유가증권으로서의 발전방향

정하윤 ( Ha-yun Chung ) 한국상사판례학회 2016 상사판례연구 Vol.29 No.3

본 연구에서 화물인도지시서를 종합적으로 살펴본 결과 다음과 같은 결론에 이르게 되었다. 첫째, 화물인도지시서는 유가증권개념에 필수적인 운송물인도청구권이라는 재산권을 표창하고 있고 또 화물인도지시서는 증권이라는 개념을 충족시키면서 그 권리의 행사 등에 화물인도지서를 소지하여야 한다. 그러면서 일반 유가증권의 특성인 지시증권성과 제시증권성 및 상환증권성을 가진 유가증권으로서 경우에 따라서는 그 화물인도지시서를 통하여 은행이나 그 물건을 필요로 하는 사람에게 매각할 수 있다. 따라서 화물인도지시서를 선하증권과 같은 유가증권으로 개념구성하여도 무리가 없다고 본다. 둘째, 선하증권이나 화물인도지시서는 다 같이 운송물인도청구권을 표창하는 유가증권이라는 관점에서 화물인도지시서에도 채권적 효력을 인정하여야 한다. 왜냐하면 운송물인도청구권인 화물인도지시서에 채권적 효력을 인정하지 않으면 그 목적을 달성하지 못하기 때문이다. 또 화물인도지시서의 내용은 선하증권과 비슷하게 운송물의 명세와 선하증권번호, 발행일자 및 운송조건을 명시하고 있다는 점에서, 그리고 화물인도지시서는 선하증권을 회수하고서 발행되어 선하증권을 대신하는 증권으로서 운송물의 인도가 확실하다는 점에서 채권적 효력을 인정하는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 셋째, 선하증권이나 화물인도지시서는 다 같이 운송물의 인도를 목적으로 하는 유가증권이라는 관점에서 화물인도지시서에도 물권적 효력을 인정하여야 한다. 왜냐하면 인도증권인 화물인도지시서에 물권적 효력을 인정하지 않으면 그 목적을 달성하지 못하기 때문이다. 또 유가증권의 유통성법리는 동산의 거래안전법리보다 한 단계 더 진화한 것으로 시장친화적인 성격을 가지고 있기 때문에 물품증권의 물권적 효력에 관한법리도 물권법적인 원리보다는 유가증권법적인 원리가 적용되는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 넷째, 유가증권의 목적은 언제나 유통의 목적만 있는 것이 아니라는 점과 화물의 인도과정에서 보세창고업자의 청구가 있으면 언제나 화물인도지시서를 제시하여야 한다는 제시증권성과 상환증권성 등에 비추어보아 제1유형과 제2유형의 화물인도지시서에 대하여는 유가증권성을 인정할 수 있다고 본다. 다섯째, 화물인도지시서는 유가증권의 개념요소를 다 갖추었고 또 유가증권으로서의 중요한 특성인 지시증권성과 제시증권성 그리고 상환증권성을 갖추고 있다. 그 뿐만 아니라 영국법상의 권원증권이 되기 위한 요소까지 다 갖추고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 이런 사정을 종합하여 볼 때 화물인도지시서를 유가증권으로 보는데 별 다른 어려움이 없을 뿐만 아니라 앞으로는 더욱 적극적으로 유가증권성을 인정하여야 할 것으로 보인다. 마지막으로 우리 법제상 화물인도지시서에 관한 개념정립을 명확히 하는 것은 향후 선하증권의 대용물로서 화물인도지시서가 운송물의 유통을 촉진하는 상업적 요구에 부응하기 위해 반드시 필요하다. 또한 화물인도지시서가 선하증권의 대용물로서 기능을 수행하기 위해서는 어떤형태로든지 화물인도지시서 소지인이 운송인에 대해 운송계약상 권리를 행사할 수 있는 법적지위가 부여되어야 한다. 그렇게 되어야만 화물인도 지시서가 선하증권의 기능과 특성을 완벽하게 대체하면서 완전한 유가증권으로서 인정받을 것이다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여서는 화물인도지시서 소지인과 운송인 사이에 운송계약관계를 추론할 수 있는 법적장치가 필요하다고 본다. This article deals with Delivery order. As result of previous looking into, it reaches to the following conclusion. Firstly, Delivery order must to be granted bond``s validity, in that bill of lading and delivery order are negotiable securities which represent a claim for goods in carriage. Secondly, Delivery order must to be granted real right``s validity, in that bill of lading and delivery order are negotiable securities which represent the right to claim the delivery of goods. Thirdly, Delivery order is negotiable securities because it has a characteristic that securities must be presented and exchanged in exercise of rights. Fourthly, Making clear of the definition of the delivery order in Korean legal system is urgently needed for the boost of the logistics and commerce. Fifthly, in order for the delivery order to act as substitute for a bill of lading, the holder of a delivery order shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit under the contract of carriage as if he had been a party to that contract. Finally, It is needed detailed and clear legal device about delivery order.

중국 국제사법상 당사자자치 원칙에 관한 연구

김현아 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2019 성균관법학 Vol.31 No.1

In 2010, China enacted the Private International Law. In particular, the fact that the principle of party autonomy is stipulated in the general section and declared as the general principle of international law is evaluated as avant-garde legislation. As for the principle of party autonomy the declarative provision is made in the general part and many of the provisions are made in the part of the regulations. In China, the principle of party autonomy has begun to develop from the contract field, and now there are no restrictions on the scope or selection of the law in the field of contract, representation, arbitration agreement, trust and transfer of intellectual property rights. In addition, there is no restriction on the law or the time of choice of the parties in the field of real rights over movables and legal bonds. On the other hand, there are restrictions on marital property, consensual divorce, infringement of intellectual property rights and liability of products. 중국은 2010년 ‘섭외민사관계법률적용법’(‘법률적용법’)을 제정하여 2011년 4월부터 시행하고 있다. ‘법률적용법’은 선진입법기술을 대폭적으로 수용하였는데, 특히 당사자자치 원칙을 총칙 편에 규정하여 국제사법의 일반원칙으로 선언한 점은 전위적 입법으로 평가되고 있다. 당사자자치 원칙은 총칙인 제3조를 비롯하여, 각칙 제16조 임의대리, 제17조신탁, 제18조 중재합의, 제24조 부부재산관계, 제26조 협의이혼, 제37조 동산물권, 제38조 운송중 동산물권의 발생과 변경, 제41조 계약, 제44조 불법행위, 제45조제조물책임, 제47조 부당이득 및 사무관리, 제49조 지식재산권의 양도와 사용허용, 제50조 지식재산권 침해 등 모두 14개의 조항에 규정되어 있다. 당사자자치원칙에 대하여 총칙부분에 선언적 규정을 두고 각칙 부분에서도 많은 조문이 당사자자치원칙에 적용하는 것으로 볼 때, 입법자가 당사자자치의 원칙을 매우 중시하였다는 것을 알 수 있다. ‘법률적용법’은 계약 및 계약의 형태로 나타나는 분야인 대리, 중재합의, 신탁, 지식재산권의 양도 및 사용허락 등의 분야에서는 당사자가 선택할 수 있는 법의범위나 선택 시기 등에 대하여 제한하지 않는다. 또한 동산물권과 법정채권 분야에서도 당사자가 선택할 수 있는 법이나 선택 시기 등에 제한을 두지 않는다. 반면에 부부재산제나 협의이혼, 지식재산권의 침해 및 제조물의 책임 등에 대해서는 일정한 제한을 한다.

貨物相換證의 債權的 效力에서 文言證券性의 意味와 解釋 - 상법 제131조 화물상환증 기재의 효력을 중심으로 -

김동민 경북대학교 법학연구원 2012 법학논고 Vol.0 No.38

The consignment sheet is the securities that is representative of a claim for delivery of the freight. If the consignment sheet is delivered to a holder in due course of the consignment sheet, it happens that come into force the same effect as freight's delivery about the acquisition of the right on the freight. This provision in commercial code § 133 is effective and directed. In the past, as regards the bond's validity on the consignment sheet the bill of stipulations & the bill of factors are reconciled, but in 2000 commercial code § 131 is amended to keep back from the confusion of an interpretation between the bill of stipulations & the bill of factors. If the consignment sheet is drawn, it is presumed that the transportation contract is worked out according to the description of the consignment sheet and a transporter take the freight in the consignment sheet(§ 131 ①). Though the presumption about the description of the consignment sheet is reversed, it is deemed that a transporter take the freight in the consignment sheet against the bona fide person and answer for freight's delivery in the consignment sheet(§ 131 ②). According to the amendment of commercial code § 131, a confrontation between the bill of stipulations & the bill of factors is settled on the basis of the bill of stipulations. The main theme of this paper is what are the meaning and construction of a nature in the bill of stipulations at the bond's validity on the consignment sheet in connection with the amendment of commercial code § 131. 종래 화물상환증의 채권적 효력에 관하여는 요인증권성을 강조하는 견해와 문언증권성을 강조하는 견해가 대립하고 있었는데, 2010년에 상법이 개정되면서 이러한 해석상의 혼란을 방지할 것을 목적으로 화물상환증에 운송계약의 추정적 효력을 부여하였다. 즉 화물상환증이 발행된 경우 증권에 적힌 대로 운송계약이 체결되고 운송물을 수령한 것으로 추정하되(제131조 제1항), 추정이 번복된 경우에도 운송인은 선의의 제3자에 대하여는 증권에 적힌대로 운송물을 수령한 것으로 간주하고 증권에 적힌 대로 책임을 부담하는 것으로 개정되었다(제131조 제2항). 상법이 개정됨에 따라 기존에 양립하던 학설의 대립은 완곡하게나마 문언증권성에 입각하여 해결하는 것으로 정리되었다. 하지만 동 조항에서는 화물상환증의 문언증권성이라는 표현을 자제하면서 ‘화물상환증 기재의 효력’이라고 그 제목을 변경하여 규정하고 있다. 이러한 점에서 입법자는 어떠한 목적을 가지고 어떠한 법률효과를 의욕하면서 구상법의 조항을 이와 같이 개정하였는지를 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 본 논문에서는 화물상환증의 채권적 효력과 관련하여 동 조항이 갖는 구체적 의미와 내용이 무엇인지, 문언증권성 및 요인증권성과 관련하여 채권적 효력을 어떻게 해석해야 하는지를 고찰하였다.

영업양도시 양도인에 관한 임금 등 근로채권의 승계 여부

박진호 노동법이론실무학회 2012 노동법포럼 Vol.- No.9

In Article 41 and Article 45, commercial law defines legal effect of business transfer by separating internal aspect of transferor and transferee and external aspect of transferee and creditor or debtor of transferor. But it doesn`t have rules normally recognizing comprehensive succession of rights obligations including merger and division, having shortages in protection for business creditors of transferor. Despite this fact, work bond including wage that workers of transferor possess from existing transferor requires strong legal protection, and no one would have objections for the appropriateness. But, as there`s no clearly proven legal grounds for the appropriateness in the academy and practice. This study shows an attempt to find grounds of work bond concomitantly transferring to transferee including back pay for transferor with normal effect of business transfer. But relying on the interpretation-approach would make continuous collision with business transfer normal principle in commercial law and remain additional issues including attribution problem in criminal liability, so, it requires approach with legislative solution in mid-long term prospect. In this case, 1) rational adjustment for joint liability of transferor and transferee and each responsibility, 2) application issue for work bond preferential payment in joint liability, 3) liability issue for debt coming to period of performance after business transfer established before the transfer, 4) issue of determining criminal liability reversion subject from overdue wage would be fully considered. And detailed highlighting for each legal relation between 『transferor - worker - tranferee』after transferring work bond including wage has to be continuously researched in further study.