관계회복 관점에서 바라 본 기업의 실패복구에 대한 고객용서의 형성과 작용 메커니즘

라선아 ( Suna La ),차문경 ( Moon Kyung Cha ) 한국소비자학회 2013 소비자학연구 Vol.24 No.1

본 연구는 문제가 발생한 고객-기업 간 관계의 회복에 있어 전제가 되는 ‘고객용서’가 어떻게 형성되고 어떻게 작동하는지를 관계의 양적ㆍ질적 변수들과의 시간적 맥락에서 탐색하였다. 이를 위해 고객-기업 관계특질 변수들을 정적인 개념이 아닌 동적인 개념, 즉 ‘실패 당시 시점과 복구 이후 시점 간의 변화량 차이’로 구체화하여 측정하였다. 기업의 실패복구에 대한 만족은 물론 실패 이전의 고객애정, 고객신뢰라는 질적 변수와 관계기간이라는 양적 변수를 고객용서의 선행요인으로 파악하였으며, 고객용서가 고객애정회복, 고객신뢰회복이라는 ‘관계의 질적 회복’을 통하여 충성도회복이라는 ‘관계행동의 회복’에 미치는 영향을 망라한 모형을 제시하였다. 분석 결과, 복구만족이 고객용서의 가장 영향력 있는 선행요인으로, 실패의 심각성이 복구만족 및 고객용서에 대한 부정적 영향요인으로 나타났다. 그 외에도 기존 관계의 양적 특성인 관계기간과 질적 특성인 고객애정이 고객용서의 원천임을 확인하였다. 중요한 발견은 관계기간, 기존의 고객애정, 복구만족의 효과가 고객용서의 완전매개를 통해 고객애정회복 및 고객신뢰회복을 거쳐 충성도회복에 간접적으로 전달된다는 점이다. 이는 고객이 복구에 만족했더라도 용서하지 않으면 관계의 질적 회복을 기대할 수 없고, 관계의 질적 회복 없이 고객행동의 회복을 기대할 수 없음을 시사한다. 이로써 고객용서가 관계를 복구하는 결정적 전환점임을 확인하였다. 고객용서의 형성은 과거의 신뢰보다는 애정에 의존적이었다. 그렇다고, 기존의 애정이 항상 고객용서를 유발하는 것은 아니었다. 기존의 신뢰가 일정수준 이상일 때에만 그동안 쌓인 애정의 효과가 비로소 발휘되는 흥미로운 현상이 발견된 것이다. 과거의 관계기간은 그 자체로서 고객용서를 유발하는 역할을 한다는 점도 중요한 발견이었다. 요컨대 본 연구는 ‘고객용서’라는 개념이 고객-기업 간 관계와 관련된 변수들의 맥락 속에서 어떻게 발원하고 작용하는지에 대한 심도 있는 이해를 통해 연구자와 실무자 모두에게 중요한 시사점을 제공하고 있다. 연구의 한계 및 향후 연구과제에 대해서도 논의하였다. Despite the importance of customer forgiveness in restoring the customer-firm relationship in failure recovery context, there has been little empirical research on revealing how ``customer forgiveness`` arises and acts on relationship perspective. Current research was conducted to investigate the mechanism how customer forgiveness forms and works, especially focusing on existing relationship strength. Our research extended La(2012a)``s framework for development of research model including customer forgiveness and its antecedents and consequences. Both qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the previous relationship were considered as antecedents of customer forgiveness. Recovery satisfaction and failure severity were also included. The conceptual model is presented in <Figure 1>. To increase internal validity of rebuilt relationship as results of forgiveness, we operationalized ‘customer affection rebuilding’ as ‘the difference(the amount of change) between the levels of the affection at the moment of failure and after the recovery.’ Rebuilt trust and loyalty were measured in the same way. Using structural equation analysis, the proposed model was tested with 295 customers who had an actual experience of failure and recovery within the previous year. <Table 1> shows that all hypotheses except H6 and H8 were supported. For a deep understanding of the results, additional multiple regression analyses were conducted and some interesting findings were drawn(see, <Table 2>). Hypothesized Path Hypothesis Standardized coefficient t-Value Result Failure Severity →(-) Customer Forgiveness H1 -.108 -2.500** accepted Failure Severity →(-) Recovery Satisfaction H2 -.232 -3.649** accepted Recovery Satisfaction → Customer Forgiveness H3 .790 16.930** accepted Relationship Length → Customer Forgiveness H4 .081 2.074** accepted Relationship Length → Customer Affection_before H5 .188 3.195** accepted Relationship Length → Customer Trust_before H6 .001 .028 rejected Customer Affection_before → Customer Forgiveness H7 .115 1.757* accepted Customer Trust_before → Customer Forgiveness H8 .020 .314 rejected Customer Forgiveness → Customer Affection Rebuilding H9 .555 10.021** accepted Customer Forgiveness → Customer Trust Rebuilding H10 .161 4.240** accepted Customer Affection Rebuilding → Customer Trust Rebuilding H11 .798 17.830** accepted Customer Affection Rebuilding → Customer Loyalty Rebuilding H12 .549 7.177** accepted Customer Trust Rebuilding → Customer Loyalty Rebuilding H13 .372 4.928** accepted Customer Forgiveness →(no direct effect) Customer Loyalty Rebuilding H14 -.001 -.014 accepted1) * p < .05, ** p=.001 Note: 1) H14 was tested via the ‘model of direct path from Customer Forgiveness to Customer Loyalty Rebuilding’. The designated path coefficient was insignificant. Model fit indices are as follows: χ2(615)=1257.178(p=.00), χ2/df=2.044, CFI=.949, NNFI=.944, SRMR=.071, RMSEA=.060. <Table 1> Results of Hypotheses Test Results of the research confirm that customer forgiveness is an important construct in the process of restoring customer-firmrelationship in the failure recovery context. Customer forgiveness is crucial to rebuilding of customer affection, trust, and eventually behavioral loyalty. Customer forgiveness fully mediates the effects of recovery satisfaction, relationship length, and past affection to loyalty rebuilding through repair of damaged affection and trust. Interestingly, the study revealed that customer forgiveness is formed via emotional path rather than cognitive path. But considering the results of the additional regression analyses across groups(see, <Table 2>), customer affection without trust cannot solely lead to forgiveness. <Table 2> Results of Multiple Regression across Groups Group Independent Variable β t-Value adjusted R2 F Customer Affection_before_Hi Relationship Length .090 1.761* .584 34.738** Recovery Satisfaction .775 3.389** Customer Affection_before_Lo Recovery Satisfaction .665 2.763** .531 26.488** Customer Trust_before_Hi Recovery Satisfaction .680 2.887** .558 31.312** Customer Affection_b .151 2.354** Customer Trust_before_Lo Relationship Length .107 1.940* .573 32.928** Recovery Satisfaction .676 2.984** * p < .05, ** p=.001 Note: Dependent variable is Customer Forgiveness <Table 2> Results of Multiple Regression across Groups is crucial to rebuilding of customer affection, trust, and eventually behavioral loyalty. Customer forgiveness fully mediates the effects of recovery satisfaction, relationship length, and past affection to loyalty rebuilding through repair of damaged affection and trust. Interestingly, the study revealed that customer forgiveness is formed via emotional path rather than cognitive path. But considering the results of the additional regression analyses across groups(see, <Table 2>), customer affection without trust cannot solely lead to forgiveness. The research findings brings critical attention from the management. The goal of recovery should be set to rebuild customer-firm relationship. Merely providing one-off compensation is not the answer. Complete range of recovery performance covering interactional, communicational, procedural, compensational aspects should be initiated to satisfy customers since recovery satisfaction is the most important factor that leads customer forgiveness. Accordingly, marketers need to perform a long-term recovery program such as follow-up calls and immediate remedies. As the length of relationship facilitates customer forgiveness, a regular implementation of customer retention strategy is also effective when failures occur. In doing so, firms can predict how much of the failed relationship can be restored, which in turn will provide feed back to the next steps. Theoretical implications, limitations and future research ideas are also discussed.

국내 패션기업과 협력업체와의 관계에서 신뢰와 몰입에 영향을 미치는 변인 : 관계 기간의 조절 효과

박나리 ( Na Ri Park ),박재옥 ( Jae Ok Park ) 복식문화학회 2013 服飾文化硏究 Vol.21 No.2

This study examined regarding the moderating effect of length of relationship in the relationship among the antecedent variables (i. e, specific investment, opportunistic behavior, communication, uncertainty, interdependence, power imbalance, shared value, and flexibility) of trust and commitment, trust and commitment and firm performance and relationship satisfaction. A total of 128 apparel manufacturers participated in this study. Flexibility exerted the most positive effect on trust in short-term relationship, followed by specific investment. And opportunistic behavior was found to exert negative effect on trust. Commitment was found to be most negatively affected by power imbalance, followed by interdependence. Trust was shown to be significantly affected by communication, shared value and flexibility in short-term relationship. In the case of long-term relationship, commitment was shown to be significantly affected by uncertainty, interdependence, power imbalance and flexibility. Firm performance was positively affected by both trust and commitment. As for the effect of trust and commitment on relationship satisfaction, relationship satisfaction was also affected by both trust and commitment. In case the length of relationship, firm performance was affected by both trust and commitment. As for the effect of trust and commitment on relation ship satisfaction, relationship satisfaction was also affected by both trust and commitment. The result of this research provides valuable data for making a concrete suggestion regarding the strategy for improving trust and commitment for the sake of the desirable relationship between apparel manufacturers and contractors.

THE ROLE OF LUXURY BRAND ATTACHMENT ON CONSUMER BRAND RELATIONSHIP

Anwar Sadat Shimul,Michael Lwin,Ian Phau 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

This study aims to investigate the role of luxury brand attachment on consumer brand relationship by examining the relationship with trust, commitment, satisfaction and loyalty. This also examines the interrelationships among trust, commitment, satisfaction and loyalty from luxury branding context which provides a good number of theoretical and practical implications. Introduction The global luxury market exceeded $1 trillion in the year 2015 with a 5% annual growth (Bain & Co., 2015). However, industry experts predict that the luxury industry will face challenges in upcoming year primarily due to the economic instability and turmoil in the global foreign exchange market (Robert, 2015). Therefore, the luxury brand executives should carefully target their future consumer segment to sustain the current growth (Luxury Society, 2015). Earlier studies demonstrate that consumers seek various types of emotional benefits from luxury brands such as status seeking (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011), hedonic pleasure (Tsai, 2005), feeling good (Aaker, 1999), pleasurable experience (Atwal & Williams, 2009), mental peace (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003), and impressing others (Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009). Moreover, these emotional benefits create a comprehensive and memorable experience in terms of ownership and consumption of luxury brands (Choo et al., 2012). Therefore, luxury brand marketers should emphasize more on emotional attachment for building a long term and sustainable customer relationship (Orth et al., 2010). Research Gap Existing literature on consumer-brand relationship mostly considers cross-cultural issues (Chang & Chieng, 2006), reviving brand loyalty (Fournier, 1997), consumer attitude (Aggarwal, 2004), satisfaction (Sung & Choi, 2006), self-brand connection (Cheng et al., 2012), trust-based commitment (Hess & Story, 1995) and such other dimensions on brand evaluation (e.g. Swaminathan et al., 2007). Few studies have considered luxury products (Hodge et al., 2015) and the role of emotional aspects (Hwang & Kandampully, 2012) in the consumer-brand relationship. Still, there is a lack of empirical support for understanding the role of luxury brand attachment into the construct. This research will attempt to fulfil these research gaps. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Psychological theories explain attachment as the tie between a person and an object or any other components (Bowlby, 1979; Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Brand attachment is defined as a long-term and commitment oriented tie between the consumer and the brand (Esch et al., 2006). The conceptualization of luxury brand demonstrates that the inherent traits of luxury brands are distinctiveness, high transaction value, superior quality, inimitability, and craftsmanship; and luxury brand consumption is mostly emotion laden (Nueno & Quelch, 1998). Based on the existing attachment concepts and theories, we define luxury brand attachment as the emotional bond that connects a consumer with a specific brand and develops deep feelings toward the brand. Several past studies have found that brand attachment reinforces brand trust and there is a positive relationship between brand attachment and trust (e.g. Belaid & Behi, 2011). In addition, Esch et al. (2006) argue that brand satisfaction and brand attachment are interrelated and satisfaction results long-term consumer-brand relationships (Gladstein, 1984). Moreover, strong commitment from the consumers has been identified as a critical factor of long lasting brand relationship (Li et al., 2014; Sung and Choi, 2010). Further, Thomson et al. (2005) find that brand attachment creates behavioural loyalty for which consumers are also willing to pay higher prices. Expecting similar relationship from luxury branding context, we propose that H1: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumers trust in that brand. H2: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumer satisfaction for that brand. H3: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumer commitment to that brand. H4: Higher luxury brand attachment leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Scholars explain that satisfaction is an essential element of brand loyalty and both the constructs are positively related (e.g. Agustin and Singh, 2005). Past researches find that highly satisfied consumers demonstrate repeat purchases (e.g. Bennett et al, 2005). Past studies also show that trust toward the brand results brand loyalty and strengthen the relationship (Bansal et al., 2014; Belaid & Behi, 2011). Fournier (1997) identify brand trust as the key determinant of brand loyalty. Thus, we propose that H5: Higher satisfaction to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. H6: Higher trust to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Ganesan (1994) argue that a satisfied customer develop trust toward a specific brand. In support of this, Belaid & Behi (2011) state that if a brand becomes successful in fulfilling the promise with consistence performance, the consumer will have satisfaction and positive feeling about the brand. In addition, the authors find a positive relationship between brand commitment and behavioural loyalty. Expecting similar relationship from luxury branding context, we propose that H7: The higher the trust in luxury brand, the more customer satisfaction in that brand. H8: Higher commitment to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Summary of the hypothesised relationships are illustrated in Figure 1. Methodology The simple random sampling will ensure proper representation of the target population and eliminate the sampling bias (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Zikmund, 2002). The sample population will be 300 young Australian consumers aged between 20-30 years. Previous studies have found that there is a growth in luxury brand purchase by individuals in younger age groups e.g. 20 – 30 (Hung et al., 2011). Therefore, this is representative of the possible drift in the ages of consumers in the market for luxury brand purchase (Han et al., 2010). A consumer panel from Qualtrics database will be used and the sample frame consists of consumers who have higher brand likeability (Martin & Stewart, 2001). Established scales will be used to measure the constructs. All items will be measured on a seven-point Likert scale with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”. Research Significance This would be the very first study to investigate the role of luxury brand attachment in consumer brand relationship. This research will provide meaningful insights for the brand managers, brand strategists and advertising managers. This research will assist luxury brand managers in allocation of resources for the action plans that will ensure a stronger tie with the consumers in a cost efficient way. For brand managers luxury brand attachment may help them with segmentation process and well as providing direction on improving attachment to the consumers to influence trust, commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty.

B2B 관계에서 기업성과와 신뢰관계에 대한 실증연구: 관계기간의 조절효과

하홍열 ( Ha Hong-youl ) 한국고객만족경영학회 2020 고객만족경영연구 Vol.22 No.1

본 연구는 B2B 관계마케팅에서 교환활동에 참여하는 기업과 그들의 파트너 사이의 관계지속성을, 기업성과와 신뢰 측면에서 고찰하였다. 특히 관계기간(단기 vs. 장기)의 조절효과를 통해 기업성과와 신뢰 간의 관계가 어떻게 차이를 보이는가에 대한 실증연구에 초점을 두었다. 총 371명의 B2B 관계교환에 참여하는 기업과 파트너사의 참여자를 대상으로, 본 연구의 전반적인 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 기존 연구가 신뢰기반 기업성과에 초점을 둔 반면, 본 연구에서 기업성과는 신뢰에 긍정적인 영향을 나타내며, 장기적인 교환활동에서 기업성과가 신뢰 구축과 유지에 매우 중요한 역할을 담당하는 것을 확인하였다. 둘째, 기업성과와 신뢰의 관계는 관계기간의 조절효과가 통계적으로 유의하지 않게 나타났다. 즉, 기업성과-신뢰의 관계는 교환과정에서 단계별로 사이클-리사이클 되는 관계기간의 역할이 매우 미미하였다. 그러나 흥미로운 부분은, 기업성과의 측정항목 중, 오직 총자산수익률과 신뢰의 관계만이 관계기간의 조절효과가 통계적으로 유의한 영향력을 나타내었다. 즉, 총자산수익률의 향상이 낮을 경우는, 장기적 관계기간을 가진 기업 간의 신뢰가 높은 반면, 총자산수익률의 향상이 상대적으로 높을 때는, 단기간의 교환활동에 참여하고 있는 기업 간의 신뢰가 높았다. 따라서 B2B 교환과정에서 기업의 성과를 고려할 때, 어떠한 성과지표를 활용하는가에 따라, 관계기간의 역할에 의해 전반적인 기업성과-신뢰 관계에 대한 평가가 달라질 수 있음을 실증분석을 통해 제시하였다. In this study, we look at the relationship between firm performance and trust in the B2B relationships. Specially, this study examines the moderating effect of relationship length (short-term vs. long-term) of how the firm performance-trust link changes. Using a total of 371 survey data that are collected from B2B relationship participants, the proposed hypotheses are supported by empirical evidence. First, while previous studies focus on the logic of the trust-based firm performance, this study shows the direct effect of firm performance on trust, indicating that firm performance plays an important role in increasing trust in the long-term B2B relationships. Second, the relationship between firm performance and trust is not significantly moderated by the role of relationship length. More specifically, the firm performance-trust link is limited when this moderator involves in B2B relationships through the cycle and recycle process. Interestingly, however, the moderating effect of relationship length is only significant in the relationship between return on assets(ROA) and trust. Especially, if ROA is low, firms with long-term relationships have high trust. On the other hand, if ROA is relatively high, firms with short-term relationships have high trust. In line with these observations, the choice of firm performance measures is important because the overall evaluation of the firm performance-trust relationship link may depend on the role of relationship length.

협력적 노사관계의 효과

이태식(Tae-Sik Rhee),우승배(Seungbae Woo),함상우(SangWoo Hahm) 대한경영학회 2017 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.30 No.5

The effect of firm’s severity of unethicality on brand trust: the role of ethical self-identity and brand relationship quality

Nobi, Benjamin,Kyung-Min Kim 한국마케팅관리학회 2019 한국마케팅관리학회 학술대회 Vol.2019 No.10

In recent times consumers are becoming more conscious of how companies’ actions affect society and consumers’ interests in corporate social responsibility cannot be overemphasized. Previous research provides empirical evidence on the relationship between a firm’s unethical behavior and brand trust. Specifically, it is known that high levels of consumer perceived unethicality reduce the level of trust consumers have for the brand in question. Consumer interests and awareness of ethical issues relating to brands is fast growing which presupposes that, companies must seek to integrate ethical behaviour into their business model (Singh, J. 2016). Extant research shows that empathy is evident with consumers’ identification with ethical issues which consequently impacts their attitudes (Shaw & Shiu, 2002; Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006). Also, when consumers are committed or attached to a brand, this in turn influences their attitude or judgements towards the unethical actions of firms (Schmalz & Orth, 2012; Ingram, Skinner & Taylor, V. A, 2005). When consumers have a strong relationship with a brand and feel attached, they are keener to sustain that relationship because that relationship is regarded as an investment. In their study, Tsarenko & Tojib (2012) show that, after a transgression of a firm, consumers’ decision to switch service provider was attenuated by forgiveness. Due to forgiveness, Consumers are willing to continue purchasing the firms’ products even after a transgression (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2015). Thus, the present study therefore examines how other boundary conditions - brand relationship quality and ethical self-identity affect the relationship between the severity of a firm’s unethical behavior and brand trust. A theoretical framework with hypothesized relationships is developed and tested in order to answer the research questions. We predict the following based on previous studies: H1: Brand relationship quality moderates the effects of severity of unethicality on brand trust such that, when severity of unethicality is high and brand relationship quality is high, brand trust is higher than when brand relationship quality is low. H2: Ethical Self-identity moderates the relationship between severity of unethicality on brand trust such that, when severity of unethicality is high and ethical self-identity is high, brand trust is lower than when ethical self-identity is low. Data is collected from structured questionnaires resulting in 81 valid responses. Employing Analysis of variance (ANOVA), data was analysed. The results, consistent with the hypotheses, provide evidence that, ethical self-identity interact with severity of firm’s unethicality on brand trust. More to that, band relationship quality also moderated the relationship between severity of firm’s ethicality on brand trust. The study makes appropriate contribution in the domain of business ethics. From the findings of this study, important implications for managers are drawn as well as future research directions. For instance, a closer look at the interaction effects shows that, ethical self-identity represents an important consumer trait that managers must consider when they want to gain the consumers’ trust of their brand. Also, brand relationship building provides a buffer for firms in the event of an unfortunate circumstance on the part of firms.

배임죄의 본질과 타인의 사무 - 대법원 2017. 2. 3. 선고 2016도3674 판결 -

하태인 법조협회 2018 法曹 Vol.67 No.1

A breach of trust is established when the those the other people's business violates the duty. There is a presumption of trust in terms of violation, and there is no trust relationship, but there can not be a mission violation. Therefore the essence of a breach of trust should consist in breaching the inner confidential relationship. However the essence of a breach of trust can not immediately become the elements of the crime. The meaning of the essence of a breach of trust draws a distinction between other property crimes such as theft, fraud, robbery, and so on. The confidence relationship arises from a statute, contract, legal act, or factual act, but is not the same in nature. In other words if he essence of a breach of trust is the existence of the confidence relationship, the elements of the crime is a matter of degree of trust relationship related to the establishment of the crime. Therefore the establishment of the crime is inevitably linked to the existence of confidence relationship. The trust relationship arises from a statute, contract, legal act, or factual act, but the special feature is not the same. the relationship should be distinguished from the premise. It is not necessary to examine whether there is a separate confidence relationship between the legal relationship that is typically associated with a trust relationship, such as proxy, delegation, or employment, In the case of non-formal and general contracts or legal acts (such as sale,mortgage of transfer, etc), as trust relationships can not be said to be formed immediately, it is necessary to judge whether or not the affairs of of another person is in order to examine the confidence relationship. 배임죄는 ‘타인의 사무처리 자’가 ‘임무를 위배’하였을 때 성립한다. ‘위배(違背)’라는 측면에서 신임관계를 전제로 할 수밖에 없다. 신임관계가 없는데 ‘임무위배’라는 것은 생각할 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 배임죄의 본질은 신임관계를 전제로 하여야 한다. 그러나 배임죄의 본질론이 곧바로 구성요건해석론이 될 수는 없다. 배임죄 본질론의 의미는 신임관계를 전제로 하지 않는 절도죄, 사기죄, 강도죄 등 다른 재산범죄와 관계와 구별 내지 그 특성을 밝히고자 하는 데 있다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 본질론이 곧 구성요건해석론이 될 수는 없으며, 서로 별개의 문제라 할 수 있다. 즉 배임죄 본질이 신임관계 존재여부라면, 배임죄 구성요건해석론은 범죄성립과 관련되어 신임관계의 정도 문제이다. 따라서 배임죄의 성부는 신임관계 존부와 연결될 수밖에 없다. 신임관계는 법령, 계약 또는 법률행위, 사실행위에서 발생하지만 그 성격이 동일한 것은 아니다. 신임관계를 전제로 하는 것과 그렇지 않은 것을 구별하여야 한다. 즉 임무위배행위 전에 이미 신임관계가 전제되어 있는 전형적인 법률관계와, 그 외 신임관계 여부가 아닌 사무의 타인성 여부를 판단하여 야 하는 것으로 나눌 수 있다. 즉 재산관리인, 대리, 위임, 고용과 같은 신임관계와 전형적인 관련성을 가지는 법률관계는 별도의 신임관계 여부를 검토할 필요는 없으나, 비전형적이고 일반적인 계약 또는 법률행위(매매, 양도담보 등)의 경우에는 곧바로 신임관계가 형성된다고 할 수 없기 때문에 신임관계 존부를 검토하기 위하여 사무의 타인성 여부를 따져야 한다. 따라서 전자의 경우에는 해당 법률관계로 인하여 곧바로 사무처리의 근거가 되며 배임죄의 행위주체가 된다고 할 것이나, 후자의 경우에는 그 사무자체의 성격을 판단하여야 하기 때문에 사무의 타인성이 중요한 판단자료가 된다. 또 관습, 사무관리는 신임관계가 존재한다고 볼 수 있으나, 법률행위가 종료된 경우에 특히 계약해지, 해임, 해고의 경우에는 본인과 행위자 사이에는 원칙적으로 실질적 신임관계가 존재한다고 볼 수 없으며, 예외적으로 잔존업무가 있고 그것이 신임관계를 전제로 하는 경우에는 타인의 사무처리 자가 될 수 있다.

배임죄의 본질과 타인의 사무 - 대법원 2017. 2. 3. 선고 2016도3674 판결 -

하태인 ( Ha Tae-in ) 법조협회 2018 최신판례분석 Vol.67 No.1

배임죄는 ‘타인의 사무처리 자’가 ‘임무를 위배’하였을 때 성립한다. ‘위배(違背)’라는 측면에서 신임관계를 전제로 할 수밖에 없다. 신임관계가 없는데 ‘임무위배’라는 것은 생각할 수 없기 때문이다. 따라서 배임죄의 본질은 신임관계를 전제로 하여야 한다. 그러나 배임죄의 본질론이 곧바로 구성요건해석론이 될 수는 없다. 배임죄 본질론의 의미는 신임관계를 전제로 하지 않는 절도죄, 사기죄, 강도죄 등 다른 재산범죄와 관계와 구별 내지 그 특성을 밝히고자 하는 데 있다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 본질론이 곧 구성요건해석론이 될 수는 없으며, 서로 별개의 문제라 할 수 있다. 즉 배임죄 본질이 신임관계 존재여부라면, 배임죄 구성요건해석론은 범죄성립과 관련되어 신임관계의 정도 문제이다. 따라서 배임죄의 성부는 신임관계 존부와 연결될 수밖에 없다. 신임관계는 법령, 계약 또는 법률행위, 사실행위에서 발생하지만 그 성격이 동일한 것은 아니다. 신임관계를 전제로 하는 것과 그렇지 않은 것을 구별하여야 한다. 즉 임무위배행위 전에 이미 신임관계가 전제되어 있는 전형적인 법률관계와, 그 외 신임관계 여부가 아닌 사무의 타인성 여부를 판단하여 야 하는 것으로 나눌 수 있다. 즉 재산관리인, 대리, 위임, 고용과 같은 신임관계와 전형적인 관련성을 가지는 법률관계는 별도의 신임관계 여부를 검토할 필요는 없으나, 비전형적이고 일반적인 계약 또는 법률행위(매매, 양도담보 등)의 경우에는 곧바로 신임관계가 형성된다고 할 수 없기 때문에 신임관계 존부를 검토하기 위하여 사무의 타인성 여부를 따져야 한다. 따라서 전자의 경우에는 해당 법률관계로 인하여 곧바로 사무처리의 근거가 되며 배임죄의 행위주체가 된다고 할 것이나, 후자의 경우에는 그 사무자체의 성격을 판단하여야 하기 때문에 사무의 타인성이 중요한 판단자료가 된다. 또 관습, 사무관리는 신임관계가 존재한다고 볼 수 있으나, 법률행위가 종료된 경우에 특히 계약해지, 해임, 해고의 경우에는 본인과 행위자 사이에는 원칙적으로 실질적 신임관계가 존재한다고 볼 수 없으며, 예외적으로 잔존업무가 있고 그것이 신임관계를 전제로 하는 경우에는 타인의 사무처리 자가 될 수 있다. A breach of trust is established when the those the other people's business violates the duty. There is a presumption of trust in terms of violation, and there is no trust relationship, but there can not be a mission violation. Therefore the essence of a breach of trust should consist in breaching the inner confidential relationship. However the essence of a breach of trust can not immediately become the elements of the crime. The meaning of the essence of a breach of trust draws a distinction between other property crimes such as theft, fraud, robbery, and so on. The confidence relationship arises from a statute, contract, legal act, or factual act, but is not the same in nature. In other words if he essence of a breach of trust is the existence of the confidence relationship, the elements of the crime is a matter of degree of trust relationship related to the establishment of the crime. Therefore the establishment of the crime is inevitably linked to the existence of confidence relationship. The trust relationship arises from a statute, contract, legal act, or factual act, but the special feature is not the same. the relationship should be distinguished from the premise. It is not necessary to examine whether there is a separate confidence relationship between the legal relationship that is typically associated with a trust relationship, such as proxy, delegation, or employment, In the case of non-formal and general contracts or legal acts (such as sale,mort-gage of transfer, etc), as trust relationships can not be said to be formed immediately, it is necessary to judge whether or not the affairs of of another person is in order to examine the confidence relationship.

부동산 이중매매에 있어 매수인의 “재산적 이익을 보호·관리할 신임관계”의 의미

류석준 한국비교형사법학회 2020 비교형사법연구 Vol.22 No.2

평석 대상판결은 부동산 이중매매 행위를 배임행위로 판단하고 있다. 매도인이 중도금을 수령한 이후에는 소유권을 이전해줄 의무에서 벗어날 수 없다는 것이다. 그렇기 때문에 그 단계에 이른 때에는 거래 당사자 간에 매수인의 재산적 이익을 보호․관리할 신임관계가 발생하여 매도인이 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자의 지위에 서게 된다고 한다. 그런데 배임죄에서의 행위주체를 결정짓는 요소인 의무는 보증인 의무로 제한될 필요가 있다는 관점에서 보자면 대상사안의 행위자가 배임행위의 주체로 평가되기 위해서는 부동산 소유권이전등기 협력의무가 보증인 의무로 평가되어야만 한다. 그러나 매매계약상 채무를 가벌적 의무로 단언할 수는 없다. 더욱이 민사판례는 이중매매의 효력을 인정하고 있다. 이러한 판례는 결국 제1매수인에 대한 등기이전 협력의무를 부정하고 있는 셈이다. 이처럼 보증의무 유무가 불명확한 상황에서 매도인의 중도금 수령행위가 등기이전 협력의무를 반드시 이행해줄 것이라는 의사표시라고 믿는 것은 매수인의 일방적인 신뢰에 불과할 수도 있다. 일반적으로 이러한 편면적 사태는 관계로도 인식되지 않는다. 따라서 이 경우 매도인과 매수인이 신임관계에 있다고 할 수도 없게 된다. 이러한 논의를 종합하면 결국 대상사안에서 재산적 이익을 보호․관리할 신임관계의 존재를 인정하기에는 상당한 무리가 있다. 그런데 이러한 논의는 신임관계가 보증의무와 결부된 것이라는 전제에서 가능하다. 따라서 이러한 전제가 가능한지에 대한 별도의 논의가 요구된다. 이것은 비교법적 검토를 필요로 한다. 왜냐하면 형법의 배임죄에는 존재하지 않는 재산, 의무, 신임관계와 같은 문언이 독일형법 제266조(배임죄)에 규정되어 있기 때문이다. 이러한 독일형법 배임죄의 구조와 형법의 보충성의 원칙을 고려하게 되면 배임죄에서의 신임관계는 모든 의무가 아닌 보증인 의무만을 분만하는 신임관계로 제한될 필요가 있다는 결론에 이를 수 있다. 이러한 논의에 의한다면 매도인의 중도금 수령 혹은 그로 인한 소유권 이전등기 협력의무만으로 매수인과 매도인 사이의 관계를 배임죄의 행위주체 성립을 결정하는 신임관계로 평가할 수는 없다. 따라서 부동산 이중매매 행위 자체는 배임죄로 처벌될 수는 없다고 해야 한다. 그러나 제1매수인에게 기지급받은 계약금과 중도금 등에 대한 매도인의 반환의무는 보증인 의무로 평가될 수 있다. 왜냐하면 제2매수인으로부터 동일 거래대상 부동산에 대하여 이중으로 계약금과 중도금 등을 수령하였기 때문이다. 물론 제1매수인으로부터 기수령한 돈에 대한 소유권이 매도인에게 인정되는 것은 당연하다. 그러나 이중매매로 인하여 제1매수인에 대하여 채무불이행 혹은 이행불능 등의 상태에 이른 매도인으로서는 제1매수인으로부터 기지급받은 돈에 상당하는 금액 등을 제1매수인에게 지급해야만 하는 것도 신의칙상 당연하다. 그리고 매도인이 계약금과 중도금을 수령한 행위는 매도인의 채무불이행시 매수인에게 그 돈을 반환해줄 것이라는 것에 대한 매수인 신뢰의 객관적 원인으로 평가될 수 있다. 또한 이것은 계약금과 중도금 ‘이중’수령에 의해 발생하는 것이 소유권 이전의무와 같은 단순한 사법상 채무가 아닌 매수인에게 반드시 이행해야만 하는 보증의무임을 의미한다. 따라서 매도인은 제2매수인과 새로운 매매 ... This precedent judged the real estate seller's double-dealing act as a breach of trust. After the seller receives the middle payment, he is not free from the obligation to transfer ownership, and at that stage, there is a trust between the parties in the transaction to protect and manage the buyer's property interests, and the seller is said to stand in the position of the person handling the other person's affairs. However, in view of the need to limit the obligation to determine the subject of the act in breach of trust to the obligation of the guarantor, the obligation to cooperate with the transfer registrar must be assessed as the obligation of the guarantor in order for the actor in the subject matter to be assessed as the subject of the breach. However, it is not possible to affirm whether a debt arising from a trade contract can be assessed as such an obligation. If the existence of the obligation is not so clear, it is also questionable whether the trust of the buyer alone can form a trust relationship. Because it is only a buyer's one-sided trust to believe that the seller's act of receiving a middle payment in a situation where it is not clear whether the obligation to register ownership transfer is a guarantee that must be fulfilled. Such a one-sided situation is generally not recognised as a relationship, so it is questionable whether the seller and buyer in such a situation are in a special trust relationship. In fact, written language such as property, duty and trust relationship do not exist in the law of breach of trust in criminal law. However, it is only stipulated in the law in Article 266 of the German Criminal Code. Therefore, it is understood that these phrases originated from the German method. If so, it would not be unfair to refer to the structure of the written language of German criminal law in grasping the meaning of this sentence. Under the structure of these German criminal code provisions, the trust relationship needs to be limited to trust relationships that are not limited to all obligations, but only to those that are guarantors. In this regard, the relationship between the buyer and the seller cannot be evaluated as a trust relationship to assess whether the seller is an subject of breach of trust by the obligation to register ownership transfer in the subject matter, which is not clearly assessed as a guarantor's obligation. Thus, in principle, a seller of real estate double-dealing should not be punished for breach of trust in itself. However, the seller should assume the obligation of the guarantor to return the deposit and the interim amount paid by the first buyer. This is because the seller received the deposit and the interim amount from the second purchaser for the property to be traded in duplicate. It is natural for the seller to be granted ownership of the money due to the first buyer, but for a seller who has reached a state of default or infeasibility, it is only natural that he should return the money he received from the first buyer. Therefore, the seller is required to assume the position as an agent of breach of trust, since he is required to return the deposit and the interim amount to the first purchaser from the moment he signs a new contract with the second purchaser or receives the interim payment from him.

양자간 명의신탁과 횡령죄의 성부

이승준 ( Lee Seungjun ) 한국비교형사법학회 2021 비교형사법연구 Vol.23 No.1

최근 대법원은 양자간 명의신탁에서 수탁자가 신탁재산을 임의로 처분한 경우 횡령죄가 성립한다는 기존 판례를 변경하고 횡령죄가 성립하지 않는다는 입장으로 선회하였다. 종래 대법원은 부동산 물권변동이 무효라고 하더라도 신탁자의 소유권이 박탈되는 것은 아니라는 논거로 신탁자에 대한 횡령죄를 인정하고 있었다. 양자간 명의신탁에 대한 대법원의 이번 판결은 중간생략명의신탁에 대하여 횡령죄의 성립을 부정한 순간부터 예견되었다고 할 수 있다. 논리적으로는 이번 판결이 이전 판결의 연장선상에 있으며 결론의 일관성도 유지되었다고 할 수 있다. “부동산실명법 위반 → 원인행위 무효 → 형법상 보호할만한 가치 있는 신임관계 부정 → 불법적인 사실상 위탁관계 존재 → 횡령죄 불성립”이라는 논리가 관철되었기 때문이다. 그러나 조금 더 심도 있게 들여다보면 새로운 관점에서의 접근이 가능하다. 우선 명의신탁에서 수탁자의 횡령죄 성부 판단은 재물의 타인성 판단에 더하여 신임관계에 기한 위탁관계에 의한 보관자의 지위가 인정되는지 여부가 판단되어야 한다. 양자는 별개의 구성요건요소이다. 그리고 양자간 명의신탁에서 수탁자에게 횡령죄가 인정되지 않는다고 보아야 하는 이유는 일률적으로 형법상 보호할 만한 가치가 있는 신임관계가 없기 때문이 아니다. 원인행위가 무효 또는 취소가 되어 발생하는 사실상의 위탁관계가 불법적인 관계인지에 대한 판단에 있어 원인행위의 불법성 무효성이 유일하고도 절대적인 기준이 될 수는 없다. 모든 명의신탁에서 사실상의 위탁관계를 부정하는 것은 명의신탁이라는 이유로 모두 탈법적인 것으로 간주하는 것과 같다. 따라서 신임관계에 기한 사실상의 위탁관계가 존재하는지 여부를 무효 또는 취소인 원인행위의 반사회성·반윤리성을 개별적 사안에 따라 구분하여 규범적으로 판단하는 것이 타당하다. 즉 횡령죄에서의 위탁관계는 사실상의 위탁관계로 족하며, 위탁관계의 원인행위가 무효 또는 취소가 된 원인에 따라 사실상의 위탁관계의 존재 여부가 달라지며, 양자간 명의신탁도 이러한 관점에서 판단되어야 한다. Recently, the Supreme Court changed the precedent that embezzlement crimes are established when the trustee arbitrarily disposes the trust property in a two-sided trust. Conventionally, the Supreme Court admitted the crime of embezzlement against the trustee on the grounds that the truster's ownership would not be deprived even if the change in property ownership is invalid. It can be said that the Supreme Court's change was foreseen from the moment it denied the establishment of an embezzlement crime against the trust with an abbreviated trust. Logically, it can be said that this decision is an extension of the previous case, and the consistency of its conclusions was also maintained. This is because the logic of “violation of the Law on land registration of the copyright owner of the land in suitable Name, invalidation of the cause of action, denial of a trustworthy relationship worth protecting under the criminal act, illegality of virtual consignment relationship” was implemented. However, if we look a little deeper, we can approach it from a new perspective. First of all, in the trust, the trustee's embezzlement should be judged whether he has the property of others and he hold it under the consignment relationship. The reason why the trustee is not convicted of embezzlement in the two-sided trust is not because there is no trust relationship worth protecting under the Criminal Act. Rather, denying the virtual consignment relationship in all the trusts is the same as considering all trusts as illegal because they are trusts. It is reasonable to judge whether or not virtual consignment relationship exists by classifying the antisociality and anti-ethics of the act of causing invalidity or revocation, according to individual cases. In other words, the consignment relationship in the crime of embezzlement is sufficient as a virtual consignment relationship, and the existence of the actual consignment relationship varies depending on the cause of the invalidity or cancellation of the cause of the consignment relationship, and the two-sided trust should be judged from this point of view.