전세권 저당권의 등기의 효력과 그 실행방법 -대법원 2008.3.13. 선고 2006다29372,29389 판결의 평석-

황경웅 중앙법학회 2013 中央法學 Vol.15 No.3

In the case of the right of lease which is established with mortgage is registered with right to lease on a deposit basis, the Supreme Court insist that the validity of right to lease on a deposit basis mortgage with no clear explanation whether it is valid or not, if person with a right to lease on a deposit basis is good faith, the right to lease on a deposit basis is valid that the delay rent is not able to be deducted with false expression theory. When it comes to malice, the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgage is able to be deducted However, according to the false expression theory, when it comes to malice, this is invalid that if the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgagee is malice, it is regarded invalid. This paper supports the valid position of Supreme Court that the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgagee is malice, even if it is different with the parties. Even if support the Supreme Court’s opinion, it is hard to support to exclude all deduction of delay rent. Instead, it is regareded a person who set the right to lease on a deposit basis can insist deduction to the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgagor about the delay rent which has occurred at least before a person who set the right to lease on a deposit basis inform a fact of setting mortgage because the effect of false expression not substitute a truth rental contract for a lease on a deposit basis contract. About a execution method for the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgagee when the right to lease on a deposit basis has expired, the Supreme Court regarding the method should be execution of a bond method applying the rules of dingliche Subrogation. However, the right to lease on a deposit basis mortgagor can directly claim the deposit money to a person who set the right to lease on a deposit basis after inform the truth of setting mortgage to a person who set the right to lease on a deposit basis applying the rule of unique pledge of a claim about the bond as a security right based on the Civil Law Act because even if the right to lease on a deposit basis has expired, only the rights of usufruct has expired but real rights granted by way of security still lasted.

무권대리와 상속

황경웅 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2019 法學論文集 Vol.43 No.3

Unauthorized Representation and Inheritance Hwang, Kwong-Woong In relation to the theory of Fusion of Character, the theory of Principle of Good Faith, and the theory of Parallel Existence are argued in our country. However, the theory of Parallel Existence in our country is not much different from the theory of Principle of Faithfulness in terms of the doctrine and its contents. On the contrary, if the purpose of the theory of Parallel Existence is to be realized, it is reasonable to have the status of the person in charge of the existence of parallel existence completely and to distinguish this theory from the existing theory of Parallel Existence by referring to it as the theory of Complete Parallel Existence. The matter of which of the above arguments is valid will be revealed in the course of reviewing the validity of the conclusion of each case of unauthorized representation and inheritance(i.e. when a unauthorized representative agent inherits the principal (the unauthorized representative agent-inherit case), when the principal inherits the unauthorized representative agent (the principal-inherit case), and under each theory). The theory of Fusion of Character is hard to take in as it is difficult to explain the position of the case in both of the unauthorized representative agent-inherit case and the principal-inherit case. The view that the theory of good faith is not valid in that it fails to keep the purpose of Article 135 of the Civil Code. And the view that it is against the Good fakth to refuse to accept the responsibility for implementation pursuant to Article 135 has a difficult point in attracting the dubious notion of good faith. Therefore, I believe that the theory of Complete Parallel Existence can be used to control the interests of the counterpart of the act of power and the agent of the right without attracting the unclear notion of the law of good faith while maintaining the purpose of Article 135. 무권대리와 상속과 관련하여 우리나라에서는 인격융합설, 신의칙설, 병존설 등이주장되고 있다. 그러나 우리나라에서의 병존설은 신의칙설과 그 내용에 있어 별다른차이가 없다. 오히려 병존설의 취지를 살린다면 본인의 지위와 무권대리인의 지위를완전히 병존시키는 설이 타당하고 이설을 완전병존설이라고 하여 기존의 병존설과구별하였다. 위 제설 중 어느 설이 타당한가는 무권대리와 상속의 각 경우, 즉 무권대리인이 본인을 상속하는 경우(무권대리인 상속형), 본인이 무권대리인을 상속하는 경우(본인 상속형), 본인과 무권대리인을 상속하는 쌍방 상속형으로 나누어 각 학설에 따른 결론의타당성을 검토하는 과정에서 드러나게 될 것이다. 인격융합설은 무권대리인 상속형과 본인 상속형에서의 판례입장을 설명하기가 곤란하다는 점에서 취하기 힘들다. 신의칙설 중 선행행위에 모순된다는 것을 신의칙위반으로 드는 견해는 민법 제135 조의 취지를 살리지 못한다는 점에서 타당하지 못하고, 제135조에 따라 이행책임을부담하는 경우에 추인거절을 하는 것을 신의칙위반으로 드는 견해는 굳이 신의칙이라는 불명확한 개념을 끌이들이는 난점이 있다. 따라서 완전병존설이 제135조의 취지를 살리면서 신의칙이라는 불명확한 개념을끌어들이지 않으면서도 무권대리행위의 상대방과 무권대리인의 이익을 조절할 수 있는 이론이라고 생각한다.

채권양도행위의 사해행위취소시 채무자에 대한 통지 여부 - 2015. 11. 17. 선고 2012다2743 판결 -

황경웅 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學論文集 Vol.41 No.3

The court ruled that the creditor should notify the third party of the cancellation of the transfer of the credit by way of the recovery when the creditor does not withdraw from the third debtor when the transfer of the credit is canceled due to the fraudulent act(대법원 2015. 11. 17. 선고 2012다2743 판결, Supreme Court Decision of December 27, 2015 Decision of December 27, 2012). However, even if the notice of cancellation of the notification of the transfer of the credit to the third debtor is given in the same manner as the above judgment, the debtor can not exercise the bond with the third debtor because of the relative nullity theory of the case. This is a natural result. In this case, it is not meaningful to notify the third debtor of the cancellation of the transfer of the credit as the method of restitution of the transfer of the credit, which is the object of the act. In other words, the notification of the transfer of the credit in the transfer of the credit is only a requirement for the transferee to be able to exercise the credit for the third debtor as a countermeasure. Even if the method according to the objected decision is taken, the debtor shall still pay the third debtor It can not exercise credit. This is caused by the theoretical problem of relative nullity theory, and the best way to solve the problem of relative nullity theory is to solve it according to the litigation right theory. According to this theory, the creditor can cancel the fraudulent act while the creditor is the creditor of the transferred credit without having to cancel the transfer.

국제 혼인 및 이혼사건의 처리에 대하여

황경웅 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2009 法學論文集 Vol.33 No.2

As the development of transportation and vehicle, the international interchange has been grown. It has influence on the increase of the international marriage. Therefore, it has lead to the increase of international family case in the country. We have to decide the applicable law which is applicable to the settlement of a dispute on international family case in the first place. And then, we have to solve the problem with the interpretation of the applicable law. In such a sense, the rule of family case on private international law is so remarkable. Therefore, this paper deals with the rule for family case on private international law. Though the paper just introduces the national opinion of the interpretation of the private international law, I hope that there is a lively discussion on this subject in academic circles.

압류와 상계

황경웅 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2022 法學論文集 Vol.46 No.2

In the interpretation of Article 498 concerning seizure and set-off, 2011Da45521 judgement sentenced 2012.2.16. by Korean Supreme Court All-in-one judgment was based on 'protection of legitimate expectations for set-off', and according to the standard for payment deadline, if the active claim payment time does not arrive at the time of seizure, the active claim payment machine arrives at the same time as the manual claim payment machine, or Alternatively, it is said that the third debtor can counter the garnishment creditor by set-off only if the payment period is reached before the manual claim. said to be able However, the basis for ‘protection of legitimate expectations for offsetting’ is difficult to be considered valid in all cases classified based on the payment period, and its specific content is ambiguous, so it should be considered as follows. Since offsetting is a settlement method between both creditors, the actual value of both claims must be calculated and settled. Since offsetting is a settlement method between both creditors, the settlement must reflect the actual value, not the nominal value, of both claims. In other words, if the nominal value of the claim is different from what was expected at the time the contract was concluded due to changes in circumstances after the conclusion of the contract, it is fair to recalculate and settle the actual value of the claim by reflecting this. However, the factors that change the actual value of the claim are both internal and external to the claim itself. This is because the original claim is that the parties to the contract can set the content arbitrarily, and the third party will be incorporated into the claim relationship through seizure or transfer of the claim under the premise of the contents of the claim stipulated by the parties. On the other hand, when reassessing the actual value of a claim due to an external reason rather than an inherent reason, such as the debtor's own power, this cause is a risk that all creditors must bear in common. This is because treatment against the principle of equality of creditors is contrary to fairness by acknowledging offsetting that gives the benefit of creditors and avoiding that risk. Seen in this way, Korean Supreme Court adopts the standard principle of the payment period and recognizes an exception only when both claims are in a relationship of simultaneous performance, thereby acknowledging the set-off of the third debtor. It is hoped that there will be a change in the attitude of the judgment in the future. 압류와 상계에 관한 제498조의 해석에 있어서 2012.2.16. 선고 2011다45521 전원합의체 판결은 ‘상계에 대한 정당한 기대의 보호’를 근거로 하여 변제기 기준설에 따라 압류 당시에 자동채권의 변제기가 도래하지 않은 경우 자동채권의 변제기가 수동채권의 변제기와 동시에 도달하거나 또는 수동채권보다 먼저 변제기에 도달하는 경우애만 제3채무자는 압류 채권자에 대하여 상계로 대항할 수 있다고 하고, 그 외의 경우에는 압류로 대항할 수 없지만 양 채권이 동시이행관계에 있으면 상계로 대항할 수 있다고 한다. 그러나 ‘상계에 대한 정당한 기대의 보호’라는 근거는 변제기를 기준으로 유형화한 모든 경우에 타당하다고 보기 힘들고, 또 그 구체적인 내용도 모호하므로 다음과 같이 생각해야 할 것이다. 상계는 양 채권자들 사이의 결제방법이므로 양 채권의 실질적 가치를 산정하여 결제되어야 한다. 상계는 양 채권자들 사이의 결제방법이므로 양 채권의 명목적 가치가 아니라 실질적 가치를 반영하여 결제되어야 한다. 즉 채권의 명목적 가치가 계약체결 후의 사정변경으로 인하여 계약체결 당시에 예상했던 것과 다르게 되는 경우에는 이를 반영하여 채권의 실질적 가치를 재산정하여 결제를 하여야 공평하다. 그런데 채권의 실질적 가치를 변경시키는 요인은 채권 자체에 내재적인 사유도 있고 외부적인 사유도 있는바, 내재적인 사유로 채권의 실질적 가치를 재산정하는 것은 당사자 사이뿐만 아니라 채권관계 외부의 제3자에게도 영향을 미친다고 보아야 한다. 왜냐하면 채권이란 본래 계약체결 당사자가 임의로 내용을 정할 수 있는 것이고 제3자는 이렇게 당사자들이 규정한 채권내용을 전제로 압류나 채권양도 등의 방법을 통하여 그 채권관계에 편입하게 되기 때문이다. 이에 반하여 채무자의 자력과 같이 채권 자체에 내재적 사유가 아닌 외부적 사유로 채권의 실질적 가치를 재산정할 때에는 이런 사유는 모든 채권자들이 공통으로 부담하여야 할 위험이므로 채무자이자 자동채권을 가지는 채권자에게만 우선적 채권회수의 이익을 주는 상계를 인정하여 그 위험에 면하게 함으로써 채권자평등의 원칙에 반한 처리는 공평에 반하기 때문이다. 이렇게 본다면 우리 대법원이 변제기 기준설을 취하면서 양 채권이 동시이행의 관계에 서는 경우에만 예외를 인정하여 제3채무자의 상계를 인정하는 것은 내재적 사유를 지나치게 좁은 범위에서만 인정한다는 비판을 받지 않을 수 없을 것이다. 차후 판례의 태도에 변화가 있기를 기대한다.

행사기간이 법정되지 않은 해제권의 행사기간과 기산일

황경웅 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2018 法學論文集 Vol.42 No.3

Regarding the duration of the right of recission, it is said that Korea's customs takes 10 years of irregularity irrespective of whether the right of statutory right of Recission and the right of termination of the contract are taken. As a result, the right to claim as a result of exercising the right of Recission, It is unreasonable to say that it takes 20 years under Article 162, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, to give rise to the right to release such claims. However, our judicial decision differs from the common law in that it can not exercise the right to release if the original contractual obligation expires in relation to the right of termination. However, according to my personal opinion, regardless of the right of cancellation of the statutory right of Recission and the right to terminate the contract, the exercise period can not be exercised once the statute of limitations of the original contract is completed, And the date of commencement shall be calculated from the date on which the right of termination in the civil law is incurred, ie, from the date on which default occurs, on the date on which the parties have agreed to the right of termination. 해제권의 행사기간과 관련하여 우리나라의 통설은 법정해제권과 약정해제권을 불문하고 10년의 제척기간에 걸린다고 하면서 그 이유로서 해제권을 행사한 결과로서 발생하는 청구권, 즉 원상회복 청구권이나 손해배상청구권의 소멸시효가 10년에 걸리는데, 이런 청구권을 발생하게 한 원인이 되는 해제권을 민법 제162조 제1항에 따라 20년에 걸린다고 하는 것은 불합리하다는 점을 든다. 그러나 우리 판례는 해제권과 관련하여 원 계약상의 채무가 소멸하면 해제권을 행사할 수 없다는 입장으로 통설과 달리 보고 있다. 사견에 의하면 법정해제권과 약정해제권을 불문하고 행사기간에 관하여는 원 계약상의 채무의 소멸시효가 완성되면 해제권을 행사할 수 없으므로 원 계약상의 채무의 소멸시효와 따로 독립하여 해제권의 행사기간을 정할 필요는 없고, 그 기산일은 법정해제권의 경우는 민법상의 해제권이 발생원인 사실, 즉 채무불이행이 있는 날부터, 약정해제권의 경우는 당사자들이 합의한 해제권 발생원인 사실이 발생한 날부터 기산하여야 한다고 할 것이다.

법률행위의 취소의 효력

황경웅(Hwang, Kwong-Woong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學論文集 Vol.44 No.2

In the International Economic Law, national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment are the main principles of non-discrimination. In the International Investment Agreement(IAA), national treatment provisions are stipulated without exception. Among the mandatory provisions of the IIA, the most widely prescribed form of provision is the National Treatment clause. In the early stages of the IIA, the national treatment clause was briefly defined, but as it has been defined differently as it went through different eras. At the beginning of the IIA, national treatment was defined in one article, such as most favored nation and Fair & Equitable Treatment. This was all based on the principle of the Non-Discrimination principle. However, in recent years, the IIA has evolved to alone type national treatment clause in which IIA defines the content of national treatment independently. The term of the national treatment clearly defines the object of application as “establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.” National treatment provisions that include “established” and “acquired” are pre-entry protected national treatment provisions. As the substantive requirements of national treatment, three substantive requirements were established: ① comparison of “the homogenious situation” between investors and investors in host countries ② existence of discriminatory treatment ③ legitimacy of the purpose of discrimination treatment. And in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arbitration jedgement, this requirement is strictly followed and there has been no disagreement. What has been recently discussed in homogeneous situations is the “legal requirements” of like circumstance between the objects of comparisons. In other words, it was established as the main requirement that the same legal system should be applied to peers in like circumstance. In the ISDS arbitration judgement, the citation of WTO/GATT s national treatment law has been denied. However, it is positive about the application of general exception clauses for common good such as public health and environmental protection just like the Article 20 of the GATT. That is because the IIA does not have the same grounds as the general exception. Looking at the precedents of ISDS arbitration, arbitration applicants often claim violations of the F&ET provisions at the same time as violations of national treatment. This is because the law of discrimination overlaps. In fact, national treatment is interpreted very flexibly in terms of the economic sovereignty of the host country, so there are few precedents judged as violations. On the contrary, various discrimination problems arising from the policy implementation process constitute F&ET violations. What matters in relation to the National Treaty is the fact that there are cases of de facto or disguised discrimination although it looks indiscriminate superficially in the policy enforcement of the host country. The restriction on foreign investment due to national security reasons is an example. Since this is limited to domestic law, in theory, it is more likely to be treated as a violation of national treatment. In addition, in ISDS arbitration is negative about the citation of the WTO law. However, there is no governing law in the case of a claim for violation of national treatment in areas such as intellectual property rights. In some cases, ISDS arbitration and WTO Dispute Settlement System were conducted simultaneously. Therefore, the contention between ISDS and WTO/DSB is a remaining issue. 편무계약이 취소된 경우에는 손실자는 물권적 반환청구권과 부당이득반환청구권을 선택하여 행사할 수 있고, 이때 과실이나 사용이익의 반환 및 목적물의 멸실 때의 처리는 민법 제201조 내지 제203조를 적용하여 처리하면 된다. 그러나 쌍무계약이 취소된 경우에는 급부와 반대급부의 견련성으로 인하여 판례와 학설이 일치하는 견해를 보이지 못하고 있다. 이런 상황에서 쌍무계약에서의 견련성을 유지하면서 위험부담에 관한 이론을 적용하여 필자의 나름대로의 견해를 밝히면 다음과 같다. 매매계약이 취소된 경우 매도인은 매수인을 상대로 매매목적물의 소유권에 기하여 반환청구권을 행사할 수도 있고, 채권적 청구권인 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수도 있다. 매수인은 채권적 청구권인 매매대금의 반환청구권만을 행사할 수 있다. 과실과 사용이익과 관련하여서는, 매수인은 매매대금과 매매대금의 사용이익인 대금 지급일로부터 이자를 청구할 수 있고, 매도인은 매매목적물의 반환과 인도일로부터 반환일까지의 사용이익의 반환을 청구할 수 있다. 목적물의 멸실의 경우, 그 멸실이 매수인에게 귀책사유가 있거나 매수인과 매도인 어느 쪽에게도 귀책사유가 없는 때에는 매수인은 목적물의 반환의무는 소멸하지만 그에 갈음하는 가액반환의무를 부담하고(그 반면으로 매도인은 목적물에 갈음하는 가액반환을 청구할 수 있다) 반대급부인 매매대금의 반환을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 그 멸실이 매도인의 귀책사유로 인한 때에는 매수인은 목적물의 반환의무와 그 갈음하는 반환의무는 소멸하고(그 반면으로 매도인은 목적물에 갈음하는 가액반환을 청구할 수 없다) 그 반대급부인 매매대금의 반환을 청구할 수 있다.

판례로 본 민법 제108조 제2항의 제3자 범위

黃慶雄(Kwong Woong Hwang) 중앙법학회 2014 中央法學 Vol.16 No.3

The thesis brings various cases of third parties interested based on those who made false expression and examines related precedents, leading to conclusion that it is more important to set the legal standards about a third-party limit than how to define the third party making the false expression. I argue that legal changes should be accompanied if appearance formed by false expression is taken as a fact and resulted in any new right or obligation. In addition, I present balancing conflicting interests between those making the false expression and those considering it as a fact and carrying into effect, attributing a fault to those making the false expression after comparing disadvantage those making false statement experience and advantage those carrying into effect based on the belief that the false expression is true.

저당권자의 물상대위

황경웅(Kwong Woong Hwang) 중앙법학회 2012 中央法學 Vol.14 No.4

It becomes a problem whether who will seize somebody`s property until when based on the rule that the third debtor should be seized before payment or delivery to a debtor for a mortgagee to exercise the surrogation. Regarding this, some theories are asserted such as specificity maintenance, priority preservation, or protecting the third debtor. The theory of protecting the third debtor is regarded appropriate in that the seizure is to save the third debtor`s risk of double reimbursement according to the history of legislation. Therefore, the seizure must be done by the mortgagee and when subrogated target credit devolves on or an assignment order is decided, the third debtor can seize somebody`s property before being actually paid or delivered to the acquisition by transfer or all creditors. After being actually paid by the third debtor, the mortgagee can sue for restitution of unjust enrichment if the person who gets paid is a debtor, the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another`s obligation, or the third party purchaser or all creditors. However, it seems invalid when the creditor makes a dividend from the compulsory execution proceedings.

친모 친부의 결정 기준

황경웅(Hwang, Kwong-Woong) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學論文集 Vol.34 No.2

인공생식을 통하여 자가 태어난 경우에 그 친부를 결정함에 있어서는 인공생식이라는 방법을 기획하고 주도적이고 결정적인 역할을 누가 담당하였는가라는 관점에서 결정되어야 한다. 따라서 이런 경우에는 정자제공자가 아니라 인공생식을 기획하고 주도한 의뢰부부의 남편이 부가 되어야 한다. 모의 결정에 있어서는 임신이라는 역할도 인공생식에 있어서 중요하므로 친부의 결정기준과는 달리 인공생식과정에서의 역할정도와 당사자의 의도, 당사자의 자의 친권이나 양육에 대한 태도, 자의 복지 등 종합적으로 고려하여 정하여야 할 것이다. 따라서 제3의 여성이 난자도 제공하고 출산까지 한 경우는 제3의 여성을 친모로 보아야 할 것이고, 의뢰 부부의 처가 난자를 제공하고 제3의 여성이 출산한 경우에는 난자를 제공하고 인공생식을 기획한 의뢰부부의 처를 친모로 보아야 하며, 제3의 여성이 난자를 제공하고 난자제공한 여성이 아닌 다른 여성이 출산한 경우에도 제3의 여성이나 의뢰부부의 처가 모두 인공수정자를 의뢰부부의 처의 자로 될 것을 예견하였다는 점에서 의뢰부부의 처를 친모로 보아야 할 것으로 생각한다. 현재의 법규나 이론들은 인공생식이라는 방법으로 태어난 자에 대한 친부, 친모를 결정하는 기준을 마련하여 주는 데는 미흡하므로 차후 이런 문제를 해결할 수 있는 입법이 있기를 기대한다. If the baby is born through artificial insemination, paternity should be chosen depending on who plans the artificial insemination and takes the leading role for it. Therefore, in this case, paternity should be the husband of the married couple planning and leading the artificial insemination, not the perm provider. Regarding maternity, since pregnancy takes a significant role for artificial insemination, maternity should be decided by considering many things synthetically such as how much she contributes to artificial insemination process, what intention the person in question has, how the person concerned's attitude is like that parental rights, custody, and the welfare of the fetus. Thus, couple's wife should be maternity offering an egg and planning the artificial insemination not only when the couple's wife provides an egg and the third woman gives birth to a baby but also when the third woman offers an egg and another is delivered of a baby in that both the third female and couple's wife expect that the egg is going to be the child of the couple. The current laws or theories are not enough to establish a standard for deciding who should be the paternity and maternity of the baby through artificial insemination, so I look forward to better legislation able to solve those questions.