영국법의 외관적 권한 법리와 금반언에 의한 대리 법리에 관한 연구

이성희(Yi, Sung-Hee) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2016 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

금반언은 우리 민법에서 표현대리와 관련하여 언급되고 있으며 본인책임의 이론적 기초를 이루는 영미법상의 개념으로 소개되어져 왔다. 표현대리 제도는 본인이 제3자에게 수권표시를 하였다든가(민법 제125조)대리권을 수여하였는데 자칭대리인이 수여받은 권한의 범위를 넘은 경우(민법 제126조) 그리고 수여했던 대리권이 소멸되었음에도 불구하고 자칭대리인에 의해 대리행위가 이루어진 경우(민법 제129조)의 세 개의 유형이 존재한다. 이 들 유형 모두 본인이 자칭대리인에게 대리권을 수여하지 않았지만 제3자의 신뢰를 보호하기 위해 자칭대리인이 제3자와 체결한 법률행위에 본인을 구속시킨다. 표현대리의 효과는 무권대리 행위의 효과를 본인에게 귀속되지 않는다는 기본원칙에 어긋남에도 불구하고 유권대리 행위의 효과와 동일한 효과를 본인에게 귀속시킨다. 이것은 분명 제3자 보호를 위한 예외적인 법원칙으로만 이해하기에는 충분하지 않다. 대리법에서 논리적 해답을 얻기 곤란한 이러한 점은 우리 민법에서 뿐만 아니라 영국과 미국의 대리법에서도 발견된다. 우리의 표현대리에 상응하는 제도가 이들의외관적 권한(apparent authority)법리이다. 특히 본고에서 주로 다루게 될 영국법상의 외관적 권한 법리의 경우 본인책임의 이론적 기초로서 오래전부터 금반언(estoppel)이 제시되었으며 현재도 이러한 해석에서 벗어나지 않고 있다. 반면에 미국의 경우 제3차 대리법 리스테이트먼트에서는 외관적 권한 법리와 금반언 법리를 구분함으로써 전혀 별개의 다른 법리로 취급한다. 그렇다면 우리 표현대리 책임의 이론적 기초인 금반언은 영국법에 더 가깝게 위치하고 있다고 해야 할 것이다. 본고는 이러한 점에 착안하여 영국법에서의 외관적 권한 법리를 소개하고 우리의 표현대리제도를 더 합리적으로 해석하고 운영하기 위해 고려해 보아야 할 점을 검토해 보고자 하였다. If the agent enters into contract with the third party within the scope of actual authority the result is to create contractual obligations between the principal and the third party. However if A, purporting to act as the agent of a principal(P), makes a contract with a third party(T) on behalf of P. What are the legal consequences for P and T? The answer of this problem is the doctrine of apparent authority. As its name suggest, apparent authority involves ‘appearance of authority’ not the existence of it. There may be appearance of authority whether in fact or not there is authority. Notwithstanding the absence of real authority, the agent may bind the principal where the third party has acted on the faith of such appearance of authority, usually by entering into a contract with the agent. The illusion may be created by the principal’s representation to the third party that the agent enjoys authority to perform certain acts or by the principal’s allowing third parties to infer that the agent has the authority that such an agent would usually possess. The representation, when acted upon by contractor by entering into a contract with the agent, operates as an estoppel, preventing the principal from asserting that he is not bound by the contract. English courts consistently associate apparent authority with the concept of estoppel by representation. But it seems that it is not easy to settle the theoretical foundation of apparent authority. Because it has been said that the legal underpinnings of apparent authority are shaky and in the long run may require reconsideration, and there is much argument as to whether apparent authority should have regarded as being based on estoppel or not. Apparent authority can arise not only when agent exceeds his authority or the authority has been terminated but also where a person who has never been agent is allowed to appear as agent. It is similar to our apparent authority provided in civil code(§125, §126, §129). And Apparent authority, or as it is sometimes also known, ostensible authority, is intended to protect the interests of third parties who reasonably believed that the agent was authorised. However, the doctrine in not an unqualified one. In order words, if there are no limits on the circumstances under which an unauthorised agent can bind a principal, this will also undermine the law of agency. Therefore under the English law the doctrine of apparent authority is applied to protect the interests of third parties to an extent that the law deems legitimate.

영미법에서의 외관적 권한법리와 우리 민법 제125조의 적용요건에 관한 검토

이성희 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.58 No.-

Under English-American Law, the agent is said to have authority to act and this authority constitutes a power to affect the principal's legal relations with third parties. The authority of an agent may be actual(express or implied) authority or apparent authority(also called “ostensible authority”). Where the agent's authority results from a manifestation of assent that he should represent or act for the principal expressly or impliedly made by the principal to the agent himself, the authority is called actual authority. But the agent may also have authority resulting from such a manifestation made by the principal to a third party; such authority is called apparent authority. Apparent authority arise where a third party is induced to enter into a transaction with a principal by a party who appears to have authority to act but who in fact lacks such authority. Under this doctrine, where a principal represents that another has authority, he may be bound as against a third party by the acts of that another person within the authority which that person appears to have, though he had not in fact given that person such authority. This idea is significantly differently from that of actual authority. The notion of apparent authority is essentially confined to the relationship between principal and third party:the principal may under it be bound by unauthorised acts of the agent. Apparent authority exists when (ⅰ)principal makes a manifestation, which somehow reaches a third party and (ⅱ)which causes the third party to reasonably believe tha another party(“apparent agent”)is indeed authorised to act for the principal. This requirement is same in Korea civil act §125.

표현대리규정의 중복적용론과 민법 제126조 적용범위의 확장

서순택(Soon-Taek, Seo) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2014 성균관법학 Vol.26 No.4

우리민법상 표현대리에 관한 규정은 제125조, 제126조, 그리고 제129조가 있고, 이 중 제126조의 권한을 넘는 표현대리 규정은 현재 대리권을 가진 자가 그 권한을 넘는 경우에 상대방이 그 초과된 대리권이 존재한다고 믿을 만한 정당한 이유가 있는 때에 한하여 본인에게 책임이 인정되는 유형이다. 그렇기 때문에 제125조의 ‘타인에게 수여표시된 대리권’이나 제129조의 ‘소멸된 대리권’의 범위를 넘은 행위에 대해서는 원칙적으로 제126조의 적용이 불가능하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 우리나라의 다수설과 판례는 제125조나 제129조의 표현대리가 성립하는 경우에 그 표현대리권을 기본대리권으로 삼아 제126조와의 중복적용을 인정하고 있다. 그러나 표현대리권을 기본대리권으로 하여 중복적용을 인정하는 경우에는, 거래의 안전보호라는 중복적용의 취지가 반감되는 문제, 무권대리행위의 권원인 표현대리권을 또 다른 무권대리행위의 기초로 삼는 것에 대한 타당성의 문제, 정당한 이유의 판단요소인 상대방의 신뢰가 존재하는지의 문제 등이 있을 수 있다. 본고는 기본대리권의 범위가 점차 넓혀짐으로써 그 존재 의의가 상대적으로 감소되고 정당한 이유의 판단에 대한 비중이 보다 높아진 현재의 상황에서 기본대리권의 존재를 부정하지 않으면서도 중첩적 사안의 해결을 위한 다른 각도에서의 논의를 시도하였다. 그래서 우리의 학설과 판례가 제125조와 제129조의 표현대리권을 기본대리권으로 하여 제126조와의 중복적용을 인정함으로써 나타나는 문제점들을 노정시키기보다는, 제126조의 단독 · 확대적용을 통하여 현재 학설과 판례의 논리적인 모순점을 시정하고자 하였다. 즉 제126조 소정의 ‘대리인’에, 행위 당시 정당한 대리권을 가진 대리인뿐만 아니라, 제3자에 대하여 대리권이 수여되었음이 표시된 대리인과 과거의 대리인을 모두 포함시킴으로써, 제3자에게 수여표시된 대리권이나 과거의 대리권을 제126조의 기본대리권으로 인정하고자 하는 주장을 피력하였다. 수여표시된 대리권이나 과거의 대리권을 기본대리권으로 인정하더라도, 정당한 이유의 존부에 관해서는 일반적인 제126조의 적용사안에 있어서보다 더욱 엄격하게 판단함으로써, 대리권의 존재나 그 범위에 관하여 명확하게 알 수 없는 상대방이 입게 될 불이익과 기본대리권의 범위 확장으로 인하여 간과될 수 있는 본인의 불이익 사이의 형평을 꾀할 수 있으리라 기대한다. Korean Civil Code prescribes about the apparent agencies when one express that he gave someone the authority to a third party(article 125), the representative acts in excess of his authority(article 126), and the representative acts after the agency extinction(article 129). Then if a self-claimed representative acts beyond the scope of an expressed agency that one gave someone the authority to a third party, or an extinguished agency in the past, any provision of three types listed above can not be applied directly. But in these cases there is also a need to protect a third party in good faith in view of the spirit of the apparent agency system. Because he believed that a self-claimed representative has sufficient authority. In order to solve these cases, our doctrines and the precedents approve the duplicated application of the provisions on apparent agency by thinking of apparent agency on the article 125 or the article 129 as fundamental agency on the article 126. This paper indicated the problems of our theories and the precedents approving the duplicated application of the provisions on apparent agency by assuming the establishment of apparent agency. A current attitude of our theories and the precedents have some problems with the narrow of protection scope to third party, the comparison with agency without authority gained ratification and the evaluation of credibility about the existence of apparent agency. Then this paper asserts a single-expansive application of article 126. Therefore this paper does not acknowledge the duplicated application of the provisions about the apparent agency. But that in itself is not to deny the basis of the apparent agency system and is neither to threat the safety of transaction. This paper argues that we might consider expressed agency that one gave someone the authority to a third party or extinguished agency as a fundamental agency on the article 126, but measure the existence and unexistence of legitimate reason more strictly. On the other hand, the issue of duplicated application of the provisions about the apparent agency seems to require legislative resolution in Japan, where have a considerable influence on our civil law. In recent the amendments to the civil law committee in Japan proposed amendments that consider agency expressed that one gave someone the authority to a third party or extinct agency as a fundamental agency. It is very suggestive to our interpretation or legislation.

民法第126條의 表見代理에 있어서 本人과 相對方의 歸責要素에 관한 一考察

최문기(Choi, Moon-Ki) 한국재산법학회 2013 재산법연구 Vol.30 No.3

무권대리행위의 외관을 신뢰하여 거래한 상대방은 전혀 보호받지 못하게 되고, 그로 인하여 거래의 동적 안전이 심각한 침해를 받게 된다. 이와 반대로 모든 무권대리행위에 대해서 본인에게 당연히 효력이 발생하게 하는 것도 본인의 이익을 해하게 되어 부당한 측면이 존재한다. 여기서 본인의 이익(정적 이익)과 상대방의 이익(동적 이익)을 균형 있게 조화시키려는 입법정책적 제도가 바로 표현대리이다. 표현대리는 외부적 수권의 효과라고 하여 무권대리의 일종이 아니라, 유권대리의 아종으로 보는 견해가 주장되고 있지만, 통설은 표현대리는 일종의 무권대리로 파악하고 있으며, 판례도 같은 입장이다. 통설은 또한 무권대리인 표현대리에 대하여 본인에게 법률행위적 귀속책임을 인정하는 근거를 권리외관책임에 두고 있다. 그러나 통설은 표현대리에 관하여 이 제도가 가지는 거래안전의 취지를 중시하여 외관을 신뢰한 자의 보호라는 측면을 중심으로 법률구성을 하였고, 이로 인하여 불이익을 받게 되는 자의 귀책요소에 대한 검토는 아주 소홀히 취급하고 있다. 표현대리에 대하여 본인이 법률행위적 책임을 부담하여야 한다면 본인에게 그 것을 감수하지 않을 수 없는 어떤 사정, 즉 귀책요소가 존재하지 않으면 안 된다고 할 것이다. 이를 논하지 않고서 민법의 표현대리 규정이 제공하고 있는 구조와 기본관계만 으로 본인과 상대방의 이행책임의 근거를 설명하려 한다면 이는 귀책사유 불요설과 마찬가지이며, 나아가 표현대리와 민법의 일반원리와의 관계설정을 어렵게 만들어 버린다. 이는 독일에서 발달한 권리외관이론을 안이하게 받아들인 데에 기인하는 것이 아닌가 한다. 그러하다면 표현대리에 있어서 본인의 귀책요소를 소홀히 다루고 있는 통설적 견해는 권리외관이론에 대한 올바른 이해를 통하여 극복되어야 할 것이다. 표현대리 규정 중에서도 특히, 민법 126조가 성립하기 위해서는 '기본대리권' 과 '정당한 이유' 라고 하는 2요건 구조를 설정하고, 무엇 때문에 기본대리권의 존재를 요구하는 것인지 불분명한 채로 제126조의 표현대리의 성립 여부를 판단하는 기준으로 작용하고 있다. 다른 한편으로는 정당한 이유의 요건을 아무런 근거도 없이 선의ㆍ무과실과 동일한 의미라고 하고, 상대방이 표현대리인의 대리행위에 대해서 선의ㆍ무과실이기만 하면 본인의 책임을 인정하는 태도를 취한다. 이 때문에 상대방의 눈에 보이는 객관적인 사정을 전제로 정당한 이유를 판단할 수밖에 없어서 외적ㆍ객관적 사정에 해당하지 않는 본인측의 사정을 고려하는 것이 곤란하게 되었다. 우리의 학설과 판례는 표현대리를 해석ㆍ운용함에 있어서 상대방의 이익을 본인의 이익보다 우위에 두는 편중된 해석을 하고 있다. 즉 권한을 넘은 표현대리(민법 제126조)에서 기본대리권의 요건을 확장시켜 놓고 있는 점, 표현대리 규정의 경합 적용을 인정하고 있는 점, 정당한 이유의 존부를 판단함에 있어서 본인의 과실이나 행위가 원인이 되었어야 할 필요가 없다고 하는 점, 나아가 본인책임을 기초짓는 권리외관이론의 추상적인 해석과 적용이 이러한 점을 뒷받침하고 있다. 이 논문은 이와 같은 논점에 유의하여 표현대리에 대한 본인과 상대방의 법률행위의 귀책요소를 규명함으로써 민법의 전 체계 내에서의 민법 제125조의 표현대리의 위상을 정립하고자 표현대리에 있어서 본인과 상대방의 귀책요소를 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다. Apparent representation system is significant in that the other party who transacted with the person called an agent is protected to maintain the reliance on the system and to enhance the security of transactions. Previously the great part of jurists and judicial precedents showed interpretations faithful to such significance, in particular in case of apparent representation exceeding authority. In other words, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents interpret toward mitigation or expansion of criteria of recognition of 'the rights of agency' as the requisite for existence of apparent representation. As above-mentioned, the right of representation and the action exceeding the authority of apparent representation should not be of the same sort, and the eligibility as the right of agency is not negated even though the right of agency is the right of representation of an action of the public law. The interpretation in which the eligibility of the right of agency as an requirement of apparent representation exceeding authority is widely recognized can protect the profits of the other party but is insufficient to protect those of the principal. Therefore, the role of the protection of the principal cannot be expected from the requirement of the right of agency, and it should be considered in another requirement of apparent representation exceeding authority, or 'existence of the justifiable reason.' On the existence of the justifiable reason the great part of jurists and judicial precedents believe the agent had the right of agency by the other party even on overstepping in question, and understand that the belief is identical with no-fault, or liability without fault. And existence of the justifiable reason is judged on the assumption of objective conditions seen from the other party in the transaction. Therefore, when existence of the justifiable reason is judged from subjective observations as in the cases of the great part of jurists and judicial precedents, the conditions of the principal that may not be judged subjectively including, for instance, the apparent representation bestowed of the right of agency forged or stole the principal's seal or registration documents for embezzlement are difficult to consider in the judgment of justifiable reason. Although on an apparent agent is essentially the agent without authority, the principal has to have the effects identical from agency with authority. Therefore, under apparent representation the principal cannot reject the performance requiring of the other party and should be burdened with responsibility of performance. Nevertheless, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents have discussed apparent representation just as a system for protecting the other party, not focusing on the protection of the principal's profit. Such tendency has been considerably criticized, and recently some jurists seek to the balance between dynamic and static profit by limiting the scope of recognition of the protection of the other party by self-responsibility or self-responsibility factors of the principal. As above-mentioned, when existence of the justifiable reason is understood as the liability without fault of the other party, it may be impossible to consider the conditions of the principal, or self-responsibility factors in the decision of existence of the justifiable reason. However, when existence of the justifiable reason and the liability without fault of the other party are regarded as separate requirements for each other, they can be considered in the decision of existence of the justifiable reason. In this context, the intervention of the static profit of the principal and the dynamic profit of the other party can be obtained from the existence of the justifiable reason with the function of general provisions.

表見代理와 無權代理의 關係

박찬주(Park Chan-Ju) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학연구 Vol.48 No.2

표현대리와 무권대리의 관계가 논의되는 것은 표현대리에 관하여 무권대리에 관한 규정(제130조 이하)에 적용할 수 있는가 라는 문제가 결부되어 있기 때문이다. 필자는 다수설과는 달리 표현대리의 요건을 갖추는 경우에는 상대방의 주장을 기다리지 아니하고 표현대리가 성립한다고 본다. 그러나 소송과 관련하여서는 본인과 무권대리인이선태적 · 예비적 공동소송의 형식으로 제기된 경우에 표현대리의 주장과 무권대리의 주장은 소송기술적 측면에서 다루어지기 때문에 표현대리에 무권대리에 관한 규정을 적용할 수 있느냐의 문제는 그다지 의미가 없다는 점은 논하였다. 이 글에서 논하는 또하나의 쟁점은 표현대리의 성립에 본인의 過責性이 요구되는가라는 점이다. 이 문제는 독일에서 논의되는 認容代理 · 外觀代理의 법리의 도입과 간접적으로 연결되어 있는데, 필자는 과책성이 技術되지 아니한 要件으로 보고, 그 과책성이 인용대리에서는 묵시적 수권행위로, 외관대리에서는 묵시적 수권의 표시(제125조)로 보는 근거임을 주장하였다. What is the of discussing on relation between apparent agency and unauthorized agency? According to the generally accepted opinions, it is said to determine whether §130 and the following provisions in Korean Civil Act provisions concerning unauthorized agency are applicable to apparent authority. Majority scholars purport thar representing act of an apparent agent takes effect after the other party's invoking apparent agency doctrine. The writer has the view tahr representing act of the apparent agent takes effect from the very time of conclusion of contract without invoking of apparent authority. Most scholars believe this difference should affect the answer of above-raising problem. But the writer asserts in this article that the repealed Korean Civil Procedure Act reduces this difference greatly, as the Act enacted the provisions for preliminary or selective co-litigation(§70). The other raising problem in this article is whether the principal's imputable attribute should be required in applying the apparent agency doctrine. Contrary to the view of majority scholars, the writer holds the affirmative view, as this view can explain the position of agency by toleration or agency by ostensibility, In drawing this conclusion, the writer analyses the several cases about apparent representation directors.

표현대리를 둘러싼 몇 가지 학설에 대한 적정성 평가 -표현대리와 민법 제35조, 제135조, 제827조의 상호관계에 관하여-

명순구 ( Soon Koo Myoung ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.31

Theories are a natural scientific phenomenon which play an important role in legal policy, legal interpretation and other areas of jurisprudence. Various viewpoints in a theoretical debate can serve as a stimulus in the advancement of science. However there are certain debates which are doubtful in terms of their appropriateness. Such debates are not unknown in civil jurisprudence. The lack of appropriateness is due to differing reasons: debates that lack both theoretical and practical utility; debates that are flawed in their presumptions; debates that do not hold for Korean civil law due to its specificities; debates that were relevant for Old Civil Law but not for New Civil Law and etc. Korea should be able to contribute to world legal culture in a way commensurate with its international status and prestige. For such purposes we need to reflect on our past as a means of setting the proper course for the future. Assessing the appropriateness of theoretical debates can free our jurisprudence from inefficiency thereby laying the foundation for a fresh start. From such a viewpoint, the present paper examines three theoretical debates concerning apparent authority. First, the relationship between apparent authority and unauthorized agency(Korean Civil Law article 135 paragraph 1)(II). Second, the relationship between apparent authority(especially article 126) and corporate tort liability(article 35 paragraph 1)(III). Third, the relationship between apparent authority(especially article 126) and the right of representation on ordinary family affairs(article 827)(IV). The first debate is flawed in its presumption. The second debate is not only based on illogical reasoning and a confusion of concepts but also rests on unrealistic assumptions. Moreover the above two debates do not account for the oral proceeding system, thereby placing the efficacy of the debates under doubt. The third debate neglects our legal system`s philosophy and structure which in turn leads to a rather awkward application of the theory of apparent authority in practice.

부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인의 권한범위에 관한 최근판례 연구 : 대법원 2009.5.28. 선고 2007다20440, 20457 판결

김광록(Kim Kwang-Rok) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學論叢 Vol.24 No.-

우리 상법은 기업의 경영보조자로서 상업사용인에 관한 규정을 다수 두고 있는데, 상법상 상업사용인은 지배인, 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 사용인, 물건판매 점포의 사용인 등이 있다. 이러한 상업사용인은 상인의 영업규모가 확대되어 상인의 영업활동이 다양하고 복잡해짐에 따라 상인의 영업활동을 보조할 필요에 따른 것으로 상법상 상업사용인의 구분은 구체적으로 그 대리권의 범위를 기준으로 구분된다. 일반적으로 실무에 있어서는 상거래의 원활과 신속한 체결 및 그 이행이 요청됨에 따라 상인의 영업을 부분적으로 보조하고 대리하기 보다는 상인의 영업 전반에 걸쳐 포괄적인 대리권을 갖고 보조하는 지배인이 절실한 것이 현실이다. 그런데 오늘날의 거래 현실에서는 지배인 못지않게 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인의 역할도 매우 중요하게 다루어지고 있다. 이는 최근의 대법원 판례 중 상법총칙과 상행위법 분야의 사건 수가 해가 갈수록 감소하거나 특별한 사건이 발생하지 않는 반면에 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인과 관련한 사건은 그래도 꾸준하게 발생하고 있는 것을 보더라도 알 수 있다. 따라서 이 글에서는 상법상 부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 상업사용인의 요건이나 그 권한 범위 등에 관한 구체적인 기준을 마련하기 위하여 최근의 대법원 판례를 중심으로 관련 문제를 다룬다. Under the Korean Commercial Code Article 15, an employee who has been entrusted with certain branches of business or specified matters relating to business may effect all acts other than judicial acts and any restriction upon the authority of the employee shall not be effective against a third person acting in good faith. Therefore, an limitation on the employee's authority can be asserted as against a third person only if the third person knew or ought to have known therof under the Korean Civil Code Articles 125 and 126. And the name of the employee, contrary to the Manager, does not have to be registered on the Commercial Register by the merchant. This Article examine the scope of the authority of the employee invested with partial comprehensive agency authority on the certain branches of business or specified matters relating to business. Especially the Article investigates the standards defining the boundary of the certain branches of business or specified matters relating to business. However, when a person has been given a title of the employee invested with partial comprehensive agency authority on the certain branches of business or specified matters relating to business, shall the person be deemed to have the same authority as that of the employee invested with partial comprehensive agency authority? In order to answer to this question, the Article also explain the matter of the apparent agent under the Korean Civil Code for determining the employee's responsibility through the recent Korean Supreme Court Decision.

부분적 포괄대리권을 가진 사용인의 법적 쟁점

곽관훈 한국경영법률학회 2014 經營法律 Vol.24 No.2

According the commercial law, commercial employees can be classified into three general categories including managers, employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority and employees of stores which sell goods. Among these people, employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority have been raised many issues and legal problems. While managers and employees of stores which sell goods are well defined, the definition and scope of employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority is somewhat vague and loosely defined. As a result, there has been an increasing number of legal matters regarding employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority. For example, directors or department heads generally considered as employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority. However, if they do not have the right, it is difficult to determine whether directors and department heads can be considered as employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority. The commercial employee system in Korea was adopted from Japanese commercial employee system which was created based on the German system. In particular, the Japanese commercial employee system has improved with economic development and social change which provides us a practical implication for Korean commercial employee system. More importantly, commercial employee is not embodied in the commercial law per se but it actually reflects the current roles of commercial employee in the Korean society. In other words, it is necessary to improve the legislation as the scope and duty of commercial employee has been changed. As noted earlier, employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority have been raised many issues and legal problems due to the fact that the commercial law or relevant legislation has not been responded the current status of employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to review legal issues regarding employees invested with partial comprehensive agency authority. Moreover, this study attempts to provide a practical implication to this particular legal matter.

표현대리인, 표현대표이사 및 권한을 남용한 대표이사를 통하여 어음을 취득한 상대방과 제삼취득자의 보호요건에 관한 연구

이훈종(Lee, Hun-Jong) 한양법학회 2014 漢陽法學 Vol.25 No.1

In this paper, we introduce Supreme Court rulings and theory on the requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through an apparent agent or an apparent representative director, or directly through a representative director who abused his authority, and review its validity. The Supreme Court of Korea suggests different legal principles regarding the requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through a representative director who abused his authority. The requisite for protection of the other party who has acquired promissory notes through a representative director who abused his authority is divided into the following: a Supreme Court ruling which says that the other party is protected if he had no malice (malice = prior knowledge), a ruling which says that he is protected if there was no gross negligence on his part, and a ruling which says that he is protected if there was no fault on his part. According to the Supreme Court ruling, an inequitable result might occur in the following cases. When the legal principle of apparent authority is applied, there are cases where the third party purchaser cannot be protected even if he exercises due diligence, but when the legal principle of cutting off of personal defense is applied, the third party purchaser can be protected even if he does not exercise due diligence. There is a need to consistently organize the legal principles proposed chaotically by numerous cases on the requisite for protection of the other party and the third party purchaser who have acquired promissory notes directly through an apparent agent, an apparent representative director, or a representative director who abused his authority. If there is gross negligence on the part of the person who has acquired the promissory notes, it is reasonable to not hold the debtor accountable for the promissory notes, because it is not necessary to protect a person who trades promissory notes without exercising any due diligence at all.

A Case Study on Apparent Authority in Korean Civil Law and United States Common Law -Placing Different Emphases on the Legal Conditions of Apparent Authority-

( Je Woo Lee ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2008 Korea University Law Review Vol.4 No.-