조합채무에 대한 조합원의 책임 = Partnership Members's Responsibilities for Debt of the Partnership -Review of an attempt to reinterpret Article 712 and 713 of the civil law-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The above external effects between creditors of the partnership and partnership members are summarized as below:
1. Partnership members' property relationship is a joint ownership, and it can be found to consist a sort of a system of vicious circle that partnership relationship should again be reflected to understand contents of joint ownership. As a result, the rules about joint ownership of real rights with receivables of the civil law cannot help being applied to the partnership property relationship indivisibly.
Therefore, if several individuals jointly purchase real estate and purchasers aim at running joint businesses by mutual investment and distribute profits, the real estate belongs to the same enterprise. Meaning, it will be regarded as the joint ownership of the partnership members.
2. As 712 and 713 of the civil law cause a lot of legal difficulties on the properties of the dept of the partnership by assuming an ambiguous attitude toward partnership members' responsibilities, it will be reasonable that each partnership member admits joint responsibility in the responsibility as their individual property, according to the principle of the joint ownership. It is reasonable to view the responsibility for the joint ownership as the time limit responsibility, since the individual partnership members only have the abstract share of the joint ownership shares until the partnership is dissolved. The partnership is an organization that is combined for a joint enterprise. Actually, because it is mostly applicable to the merchants, there will be many cases that joint responsibility about the individual responsibility of each partnership member is admitted, according to Article 57, Clause 1 of the Commercial Law.
3. Despite that partnership contract is the basic legal system, which is the basis of Article 712 of the Corporation Law, that defines individual members' responsibility according to compensation for loss, will be unfair as it results in overprotection of the partnership members when compared to the rules of the Commercial Law on the responsibilities of unlimited partners in unlimited partnerships and general partners in limited partnerships. Therefore, Article 712 needs to be reconsidered basically in the theory of legislation and should have been reconsidered before. Eventually, if a person of partnership members is insolvent regardless of any case, other partnership members have liability for performance about this. The problem that Article 712 is applied cannot help leading to the problem to interpret Article 713.
4. The provisions of Article 712 and 713 should be regarded as defining internal share rates of debt of the partnership among partnership members. Furthermore, in the external relationship, which is the relationship between creditors and partners, they consider that the responsibilities of partnership members according to the Civil Law is divided liability, while the responsibility of employees in unlimited partnerships and limited partnerships according to the Commercial Law consists of joint responsibility of invisible debt. So there is a question about what the basis is, whether the partnership members should be protected more than the creditors. The rules about the legal relationship about partnership is the general rule when compared to the legal relationship defined by the Commercial Law. Therefore, it cannot be thought that the Commercial Law strengthened the responsibility. The division into partnership according to the Commercial Law and the Civil Law is ambiguous. As long as there is no special basis that should protect partnership members more than necessary, debt of partnership members should be regarded as joint debt in the receivables, and dept relationship between creditors and partnership members should be regarded as the external relationship. The creditors can charge each partnership member except the debtors without the capacity to affect performance for the total amount

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 조합재산에 관한 법적 성질
• Ⅲ. 조합채무에 대한 책임
• Ⅳ. 결론
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "현행민법 제708조"

2 "현행민법 제706조"

3 "현행민법 제705조"

4 "현행민법 제704조"

5 양창수, "한국민법이론의 발전 : 무암이영준박사화갑기념논문집" 박영사 371-, 1999

6 "프랑스 민법 제1863조"

7 김증한, "채권총론" 박영사 224-, 1998

8 곽윤직, "채권총론" 박영사 166-, 2009

9 김형배, "채권총론" 박영사 1998

10 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2011

11 김형배, "채권각론" 박영사 2001

12 김상용, "채권각론" 화산미디어 424-, 2011

13 박준서, "주석민법 채권총칙(2)" 한국사법행정학회 1999

14 박준서, "주석민법 채권각칙(5)" 한국사법행정학회 76-, 1999

15 김재형, "조합에 대한 법적 규율" 박영사 19 : 624-671, 1997

16 "제826조"

17 "제411조"

18 "제26회 국회정기회속기록 제45호"

19 권철, "일본민법전" 2011

20 "신탁법 제50조"

21 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 1555-, 2014

22 "상법 제57조"

23 "상법 제269조"

24 "상법 제212조"

25 이진기, "민법중 개정법률안에 대한 의견" 한국민사법학회 (42) : 3-42, 2008

26 곽윤직, "민법주해[ⅩⅥ] 채권(9)" 박영사 1999

27 지원림, "민법강의 제11판" 홍문사 2013

28 이진기, "민법 채권편의 개정안에 대한 비판적 고찰*민법 채권편의 개정안에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 법무부 공고 제25호 민법중개정법률(안) 입법예고를 중심으로 -" 한국재산법학회 21 (21): 63-93, 2005

29 "독일민법 제735조[손실의 경우의 추가의무]"

30 "대판 2012.8.30, 2010다39918"

31 "대판 2012.2.16, 2010다82530 전원합의체판결"

32 "대판 2010.2.11, 2009다79729"

33 "대판 2009.3.12, 2008다28454"

34 "대판 2009.12.24, 2009다57064"

35 "대판 2008.3.13, 2006다31887"

36 "대판 2008.09.25, 2008다41529"

37 "대판 2007.6.14, 2005다5140"

38 "대판 2007.11.29, 2005다65340"

39 "대판 2007.11.29, 2005다65333"

40 "대판 2006.3.9, 2004다49709"

41 "대판 2006.3.9, 2004다49693"

42 "대판 2003.11.13, 2003다14386"

43 "대판 2003.11.13, 2003다14379"

44 "대판 2002.6.14, 2000다30622"

45 "대판 2001.12.11, 2000다13948"

46 =, "대판 2001.1.19, 2000다37319"

47 "대판 1999.6.8, 98다60484"

48 "대판 1999.4.23, 99다4504"

49 "대판 1999.11.22, 91다30705"

50 "대판 1998.12.8, 98다43137"

51 "대판 1997.5.30, 95다4957"

52 "대판 1997.2.11, 96다1733"

53 "대판 1995.9.15, 94다54894"

54 "대판 1995.10.12, 95다25695"

55 "대판 1994.10.25, 93다54064"

56 "대판 1992.9.22, 92누2202"

57 "대판 1992.11.27, 92다30405도"

58 "대판 1991.12.10, 91므245"

59 "대판 1991.11.2, 91다30705"

60 "대판 1990.10.23, 90다카5623"

61 "대판 1975.5.27, 75다169"

62 "대판 1967.4.25, 67다328"

63 "대판 1963.9.5, 63다330"

64 "대판 1957.12.5, 4250민상508"

65 "대판 1957.10.31, 4290민상459"

66 "구민법 제668조 (조합재산의 공유)"

67 "광업법 제17조"

68 民事法硏究會編, "民法案意見書" 一潮閣 189-190, 1957

69 법무부 민법개정자료발간팀, "2013년 법무부 민법개정시안-채권편(下)" 373-374, 2013