사해행위취소소송의 가액배상 판결에 대한 타 채권자의 보호방안 = The protection method for other creditor about the compensation of equivalent value judgment of the fraudulent act revocation litigation

국문 초록 (Abstract)

대법원은 민법 제407조에서 문제되는 채권자평등주의와 관련하여, 원물반환의경우에는 채권자평등주의 원칙을 따르지만 가액배상의 경우에는 그에 반하는 입장을 취하고 있다. 가액배상이 쟁점 사안인 대상판결 역시 채권자평등주의에 정 면으로 반하는 결론에 이르고 있다. 가액배상에 있어서는 취소채권자 외에 다른채권자들의 보호가 필요한데, 그 방법으로는 타 채권자의 수익자에 대한 지급금지 가처분과, 타 채권자가 취소채권자와 수익자 사이에 계속 중인 사해행위취소 소송에 독립당사자로 참가하는 방안이 고려될 수 있다. 이 글에서는 대상판결에터 잡아 종래 제안된 입법안을 비교 . 검토하면서 타 채권자들을 보호할 수 있는 입론의 방향을 제시하고자 한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

About the creditor egalitarianism in the Civil Code Article 407, in case of returning the original, the Supreme Court sticks to the creditor egalitarianism as a principle. However, in case of the compensation of equivalent value, it is opposed to the creditor egalitarianism. This issue also, is opposed entirely to the creditor egalitarianism. There are many studies that the compensation of equivalent value is opposed to the creditor egalitarianism. And, in January 7, 2013, the Commission for the Civil Code Amendment proposed revised bill for 10 provisions of Civil Code and 1 Article of Civil Execution Act about the Creditor s right of revocation. If the above amendments are promulgated and implemented, the issues that contradict the creditor egalitarianism which is related with compensation of equivalent value including this matter can be solved. However, nobody does not know when the Civil Code amendments are implemented. Therefore, at the compensation of equivalent value the protection for other creditors are needed. And I studied how to protect the other creditors until the enforcement of Civil Code amendments. Especially, in this case, the Supreme Court totally violated creditor egalitarianism. Below are some methods that protect the other creditors, First, the injunction of prohibiting payment to a beneficiary of other creditor. Second, the other creditor attends to fraudulent act revocation litigation as a separated party between revocation creditor and beneficiary. Of course, just with an above injunction and registration as a separated party, it is not resolved the creditor egalitarianism to the compensation of equivalent value. However, including this issue and in case of the same issue with this, it can be regarded that the other creditor can receive the reparations of equivalent value by the principle of creditor egalitarianism to some degree. Therefore, based on this case, about the compensation of equivalent value, this paper would like to try to find the way to protect other parties.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서 론
• Ⅱ. 대상판결의 개요 및 문제제기
• Ⅲ. 가액배상판결의 법리적인 문제점
• Ⅳ. 가액배상판결의 타 채권자 보호 방안
• Ⅴ. 채권자취소권 규정의 개정안 비판 및 제언
• Ⅵ. 결 론