파산법상 동산담보권자의 지위에 관한 연구 -도산절차 개시 전과 후의 동산담보권의 실행방법 비교를 중심으로- = A Study on Secured Creditor`s Right Under the Bankruptcy Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korean insolvency law recognizes the rights of secured creditors to have a priority for satisfaction of their claims from the assets securing their claims. Security over movables or security over receivables (the Security) under the Act on Security over Movable Property and Receivables, etc. (the Act) has a priority under the bankruptcy procedure and secured creditors may enforce their security outside the bankruptcy procedure. In this sense, the commencement of the bankruptcy procedure does not affect the rights of secured creditors. On the other hand, the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings affects rights of secured creditors. First, the Security established before the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings is treated as a rehabilitation security under the Korean insolvency law and secured creditors are not able to enforce their Security outside the rehabilitation proceedings. Second, upon commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, a security over future assets (i.e., future receivables or after-acquired movables) turns into the security over the assets existing as of the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings. The Supreme Court decision on March 28, 2013 (2010da63836) ruled that receivables of the estate acquired after the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings are not subject to Yangdo Dambo over collective future receivables, created by the debtor before the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings. This Supreme Court decision was rendered on Yangdo Dambo over collective future receivables, but the legal theory thereof will also apply to other security over future assets under the Act. Accordingly, movables or receivables of the estate acquired after the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings are not subject to security rights over future assets under the Act created by the debtor before the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 서울중앙지방법원 파산부 실무연구회, "회생사건실무(상)" 박영사 2014

2 정소민, "파산법상 불법행위채권자 보호에 관한 연구- 담보거래제도와 불법행위제도 사이의 긴장관계를 중심으로 -" 법조협회 61 (61): 5-47, 2012

3 최수정, "채권양도론" 진원사 2007

4 정소민, "채권담보제도에 관한 연구 : 「동산·채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률」을 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2012

5 오영준, "집합채권양도담보와 도산절차의 개시" 43 : 2006

6 이정구, "집합물에 대한 양도담보" (11) : 1990

7 김재협, "집합동산 양도담보" 대법원 법원행정처 16 : 1989

8 이연갑, "장래채권 양도담보와 회생담보권의 효력이 미치는 범위 - 대법원 2013. 3. 28. 선고, 2010다63836 판결 -" 법조협회 63 (63): 163-206, 2014

9 송종준, "영국회사법상 부동담보제도의 법리" 2 (2): 1995

10 박진수, "민사판례연구[XXXVI]" 박영사 2014

11 곽윤직, "민법주해(Ⅱ)" 박영사 1992

12 양창수, "민법연구, 제7권" 박영사 2003

13 김재형, "민법론Ⅰ" 박영사 2004

14 김재형, "민법론 Ⅲ" 박영사 2007

15 김재형, "민법론 Ⅲ" 박영사 2007

16 김재형, "동산담보권의 법률관계" 한국법학원 137 : 7-48, 2013

17 제철웅, "동산 및 채권 담보 제도의 개선방향 : 특정성 또는 특정가능성 원칙의 선택" 대한변호사협회 (392) : 6-36, 2009

18 양창수, "내용이 변동하는 집합적 동산의 양도담보와 그 산출물에 대한 효력" 5 : 1992

19 한기정, "英國의 浮動抵當權1)에 관한 硏究" 한국비교사법학회 10 (10): 118-176, 2003

20 김현진, "「동산·채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률」 연구 : 주요 내용과 현대화의 과제" 서울대학교 대학원 2011

21 석광현, "UNCITRAL 담보권 입법지침 연구" 법무부 2010

22 Lopucki, Lynn M., "The Unsecured Creditor's Bargain" 80 : 1994

23 Bebchuk, L.A., "The Uneasy Case for the Priority of Secured Claims in Bankruptcy" 105 : 857-, 1996

24 Squire, Richard, "The Case For Symmetry in Creditors' Rights" 118 : 806-, 2009

25 Lopucki, Lynn M., "Secured Credit: A System Approach" Aspen publishers 2009

26 McCormack, Gerard, "Secured Credit under English and American Law" Cambridge University Press 2004

27 Mayson, French, "Ryan on Company Law" Oxford University Press 2012

28 Leebron, David W., "Limited Liability, Tort Victims, and Creditors" 91 : 1565-, 1991

29 Warren, "Bankruptcy" Foundation Press 2012

30 Warren, Elizabeth, "An Article 9 Set-Aside for Unsecured Creditors" 51 : 323-, 1997