담보물권의 목적인 채권의 상계 = A Study on the Setoff over pledged claims

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Supreme Court has traditionally ruled that the pledgee has preferential right to payment, and thus the holder of opposite-demand (the third debtor) cannot contest pledge using setoff. This shows that the court recognizes the fact that setoff functions as a means of private enforcement and thus considers holders of setoff rights as a competing creditor. This is a reasonable standpoint. As setoff functions in reality as a means of private execution, this reality should be considered when granting or denying setoff rights.
However, the ruling in question(2013da91672) states that provided that the expectation of setoff is reasonable, it can be used to contest pledge granted by way of security to pledged claim. Pledge has priority over credit, regardless of the timing of their formation. Therefore, it is natural to concluded that even if the expectation of setoff was established before the pledge, setoff cannot be given priority over pledge. The ruling in question states that as long as a creditor’s expectation of setoff is reasonable, it cannot be damaged by ex post facto grounds such as the establishment of pledge granted by way of security. However, it is disputable that “reasonable expectation of setoff" is a concept with any factual substance that cannot be damaged once established. Until now, this issue has been discussed in relation to the interpretation of Article 498 of the Civil Act where said interested parties are (provisional) seizure obligees. The ruling in question appears to be based on such existing discussions of Article 498 of the Civil Act. However, interested parties shoud be distinguished between (provisional) seizure obligees and real right holders.
If the enforcement function of setoff is not disregarded, the priority of real right to credit should also be considered as ground to limit setoff rights. Thus, the correct ruling in the case in question should be that the loan creditor cannot contest the lease right(chonsegwon)-mortgagee with setoff.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 곽윤직, "채권총론 제 6판" 박영사 2009

2 윤철홍, "채권총론" 법원사 2006

3 김용한, "채권법총론" 박영사 1983

4 정소민, "채권담보제도의 현대화 - DCFR과 우리나라의 채권담보제도의 비교를 중심으로 -" 한국민사법학회 61 : 85-132, 2012

5 오경미, "채권담보 목적의 전세권과 그에 관하여 설정된 저당권의 법률관계-연구대상판결 : 대법원 2006.2.9. 선고 2005다59864 판결-" 부산판례연구회 18 : 2007

6 이영준, "주석물권법(하)" 한국사법행정법학회 1993

7 김증한, "주석 채권총칙(下)" 1984

8 이미선, "전세권저당권자의 지위와 관련된 쟁점에 관한 검토" (4) : 2007

9 김정민, "전세권저당권자가 물상대위로서 전세금반환채권에 대하여 압류 및 추심명령을 받은 경우, 제3채무자인 전세권설정자가 전세권이나 그 기초가 된 임대차계약과 무관한 자동채권으로 상계할 수 있는지 여부" (101) : 2014

10 김제완, "전세권을 목적으로 한 저당권자의 우선변제권과 상계적상 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2014. 10. 27. 선고 2013다91672 판결[양수금]" 법학연구원 (76) : 273-308, 2015

11 김창섭, "전세권에 대한 저당권의 우선변제적 효력의 인정 여부" 법조협회 50 (50): 1957

12 조경임, "임대차보증금의 담보적 성격과 이론적 근거" 법조협회 64 (64): 143-188, 2015

13 "법원실무제요 민사집행 [II]"

14 "법원실무제요 민사집행 [III]"

15 법무부, "법무부 민법개정위원회 회의속기록 제3권 - 2009년 제1기위원회 5. 6"

16 곽윤직, "민법주해[VII] 물권(4)" 박영사 2002

17 곽윤직, "민법주해 [XI] 채권(4)" 박영사 2004

18 "민법주해 [VI] 물권(3)" 박영사 2002

19 김준호, "물권법[제8판]" 법문사 2015

20 양창수, "권리의 보전과 담보 민법 III" 박영사 2012