국제도산법에 관한 검토 - UNCITRAL Model Law를 중심으로 -

최우영 한국채무자회생법학회 2010 회생법학 Vol.1 No.-

The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act( Law ) promulgated in 2005 newly inserted one Chapter on cross-border insolvency based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. In reviewing the area of cross-border insolvency under the Law, with regard to the roles of the three entities acting in crossborder insolvency cases, that is, bankrupt companies, creditors and courts, we propose to consider the three different approaches, that is, inbound approach, outbound approach and reciprocal approach, which will help understanding and easily solving various issues arising from cross-border insolvency. The inbound approach involves the issues as to if creditors can participate in domestic insolvency proceedings to satisfy the claims, or if the foreign representative of bankrupt companies can get the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and obtain reliefs and assistance from the domestic court, or to participate in the domestic proceedings. With regard to the outbound approach, the issues are if domestic creditors can participate in foreign insolvency proceedings; if domestic companies can initiate and proceed with foreign insolvency proceedings; or if the domestic insolvency proceedings can be recognized by foreign courts or can get reliefs from such foreign courts. The reciprocal approach mainly involves the issues of reciprocal adjustment and conciliation among concurrent insolvency proceedings for the same debtor and of cross-border cooperation between domestic court and foreign courts, or foreign representative to facilitate the progress of cross-border insolvency proceedings. The Law enacted several provisions relevant to the above three approaches such as role of foreign representative, recognition of foreign proceeding, relief granted upon recognition of foreign proceeding, cooperation with foreign courts and foreign representative, concurrent proceedings, while the issue of recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and grating relief to such proceedings is the most important one in dealing with cross-border insolvency cases. This issue requires more in-depth and vast review and discussion from theoretical or practical perspectives. However, in view of the legislation purpose of the UNCITRAL Model Law, that is, equal and harmonious treatment of cross-border insolvency cases, the core provisions in dealing with cross-border insolvency cases are cooperation among the courts and administrators concerning cross-border insolvency cases and conclusion and use of cross-border agreements. While our country is at the primitive stage in dealing with cross-border insolvency cases, various types of judicial cooperation on cross-border insolvency cases are implemented in Western countries including US and UK. We expect that effective and equal treatment of cross-border insolvency cases be accomplished in future through in-depth and vast theoretical review and accumulated experiences in cross-border insolvency cases.

한국, 중국, 일본의 국제도산법제와 실무의 동향

우상범(Woo, Sang-Beom) 한국국제사법학회 2021 國際私法硏究 Vol.27 No.2

한국, 중국, 일본은 서로 막대한 규모로 교역하고 투자하므로, 삼국 중 어느 국가에서 도산사건이 발생하면 삼국 중 다른 국가와 관련성을 가지는 국제도산사건이 될 가능성이 크다. 따라서 삼국의 국제도산실무가들에게 있어서 삼국의 국제도산법제와 실무의 동향 및 주요 사례를 파악하는 것은 중요하다. 특히 그동안 중국의 경제적 위상에 비해 최근 변화하고 있는 중국의 국제도산법제와 실무에 관하여 우리나라에 소개하는 문헌이 적었고, 한국 및 일본의 국제도산실무에 관하여도 외국도산절차의 승인 사례를 전체적으로 살피는 문헌은 적었다. 따라서 본 연구를 통하여 국제도산실무가들에게 삼국의 국제도산법제와 실무의 동향, 주요 사례를 전체적으로 살피는 기회를 제공하고자 한다. 중국에 관하여는 최근 홍콩과 체결한 회담기요 및 그에 따라 발표한 최고인민법원의 의견을 위주로 현행 국제도산법제의 제정 경위 및 내용에 관하여 설명하고, 중국과 관련한 거의 모든 국제도산사례를 살피면서 실무의 동향을 파악하였다. 한국과 일본에 관하여는 실무의 동향에 중점을 두고 그동안 각국 법원이 처리했던 모든 국제도산사례를 가능한 빠짐없이 정리하여 실무의 동향을 파악한 후 주요 사례를 검토하였다. 본 연구를 통하여 중국이 그동안 국제도산 문제에 있어서 매우 소극적인 자세를 취해 왔으나 최근 이러한 태도에서 벗어나려는 변화가 생기고 있음을 알 수 있다. 한국과 일본은 그동안 매우 적극적으로 외국도산절차를 승인해왔고, 상대방의 도산절차가 자국의 전체 국제도산사건에서 차지하는 비중이 매우 크기 때문에 공조의 필요성이 크다는 사실도 알 수 있었다. 본 연구를 통해 삼국간의 공조가 강화되어 향후 발생할 국제도산 문제에 효과적으로 대처할 수 있기를 기대한다. Since South Korea, China, and Japan trade and invest on a huge scale with each other, if a insolvency case occurs in any one of the three countries, it is highly likely that it will be an cross-border insolvency case that has relevance to the other of the three countries. Therefore, it is important for cross-border insolvency practitioners in the three countries to understand the trends in the cross-border insolvency laws, practices, and major cases of the three countries. In particular, compared to China’s economic status, there have been few documents that introduce China’s recently changing cross-border insolvency laws and practices to South Korea. Therefore, this study intends to provide cross-border insolvency practitioners with an opportunity to examine the cross-border insolvency law system and practice trends of the three countries as a whole, as well as major cases. Regarding China, it explains the background and contents of the current cross-border insolvency law, focusing on the summary of the recent meeting with Hong Kong and the opinions of the Supreme People’s Court announced accordingly, and examining almost all cross-border insolvency cases related to China. With regard to South Korea and Japan, we focused on the practical trends and summarized all cross-border insolvency cases handled by each country’s courts as far as possible, grasped the practical trends, and reviewed the major cases in detail. Through this study, it can be seen that China has taken a very passive attitude on the cross-border insolvency issue, but recently there is a change to break away from this attitude. South Korea and Japan have been very active in recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings so far, and since the other party’s insolvency proceedings account for a very large proportion of their total cross-border insolvency cases, it was also found that there is a great need for cooperation. It is expected that cooperation between the three countries will be strengthened through this study to effectively deal with cross-border insolvency issues that may arise in the future.

국제도산절차의 공조(共調)

오수근(OH SOO GEUN),송희종(Heejong Song) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2009 통상법률 Vol.- No.88

The opening of multiple insolvency proceedings in more than one country generally may cause difficulties in terms of efficiency and cost. Cooperation and coordination between proceedings is necessary in order to prevent and resolve any conflicts that may arise. The issue was addressed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and accordingly set out in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency cooperation and coordination as the guiding principle and further laid down examples of forms of cooperation in Article 27. Under this general framework, attention to cross‐border insolvency agreements, as a form of cooperation and coordination, was brought by the Maxwell case in 1991. A Cross‐border Insolvency Agreement is an oral or written agreement intended to facilitate the coordination of cross‐border insolvency proceedings and cooperation between the courts, between the courts and insolvency representatives and between insolvency representatives. In 2005, UNCITRAL first adopted cooperation and coordination in insolvency proceedings as one of its items. In 2009, the Commission was presented with the draft UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation, which was subsequently adopted. The objective of this paper is to introduce the UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross‐Border Insolvency Cooperation. It shall provide an account of examples of cooperation between courts in past cases. Furthermore, as well as presenting sample clauses this paper will look into various issues with regard to cross‐border insolvency agreements such as the necessity of entering cross‐border insolvency agreements, the right of parties to enter such an agreement, its form and content. The reason why such an agreement is reached is to maximize the benefit of the parties by minimizing conflicts and duplication of proceedings. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction of the practice guide so that courts or practitioners may utilize it as a stepping stone for coordination and cooperation in cross‐border insolvency proceedings.

도산국제사법의 제 문제 : 우리 법의 해석론의 방향

석광현 사법발전재단 2008 사법 Vol.1 No.4

과거의 파산법, 화의법과 회사정리법은 2006년 4월 1일자로 채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(“통합도산법”)로 대체되었다. 국제도산에서는 국내도산에서와 달리 다음과 같은 문제점들이 제기된다. 외국도산절차의 국내에서의 효력, 내국도산절차의 대외적 효력, 병행도산, 외국 법원 및 도산관재인과 내국 법원 및 도산관재인 간의 공조와, 도산절차에서의 준거법 결정에 관한 논점(즉 도산국제사법 또는 도산저촉법의 논점)이 그것이다. 이 글에서 필자는 도산국제사법의 논점을 다룬다. 통합도산법은 1997년 5월 국제연합 국제무역법위원회가 채택한 국제도산에 관한 모델법을 충실하게 따른 것이어서 준거법의 결정에 관하여는 아무런 규칙을 두고 있지 않다. 한국의 국제사법도 마찬가지이다. 따라서 국제사법과 통합도산법의 해석론으로서 준거법의 결정원칙을 도출하지 않으면 아니된다. 그런데 2000년 5월 채택되어 2002년 5월 31일 발효된 유럽연합의 “도산절차에 관한 이사회규정”(“EU규정”)은 도산국제사법에 관하여 상세히 규정하고, 2003년 개정된 독일 도산법(Insolvenzordnung)도 국제도산에 관한 제11장(제335조-제358조)을 신설하여 대체로 EU규정을 따르므로 이들은 한국법의 해석론을 전개하는 데 도움이 된다. 이런 관점에서 필자는 EU규정과 독일 도산법의 도산국제사법규칙을 검토하고 이를 참조하여 우리 법의 해석론상 도산국제사법원칙의 방향을 제시하고자 시도한다. 필자는 도산국제사법의 기본원칙으로서 도산법정지법원칙이 타당하다고 본다. 그 이유는 그것만이 채권자평등의 원칙에 부합하고, 국제도산절차에서 법적 안정성을 보장할 수 있기 때문이다. 이러한 해석론은 국제사법과 통합도산법의 합리적 해석으로부터 도출될 수 있다. 실제로 구 파산법 하에서 도산법정지법원칙을 따른 2001년 12월 24일 대법원판결도 있다. 그러나 도산법정지법원칙에 대한 예외를 인정하지 않을 수 없는데, 그러한 구체적인 사례는 EU규정과 독일 도산법에서 보는 바와 같다. 이를 기초로 필자는 도산법정지법원칙에 대한 예외를 검토한다. 특히, 제3자의 담보권, 상계, 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약에 대한 도산절차의 효력과 부인권의 문제를 검토한다. 다만 그 경우 명문의 규정이 없는 이상, EU규정과 독일 도산법의 규정을 그대로 따를 수는 없다. 예컨대 담보권의 경우 EU규정과 독일 도산법에 따르면, 담보권자의 도산법정지 외의 국가에 소재하는 담보물에 대한 담보권은 도산절차에 의하여 영향을 받지 아니한다. 그러나 한국법의 해석상으로는 그러한 결론을 취하기는 어렵다. 즉 통합도산법이 속지주의를 포기하였으므로 한국법상으로는 ① 도산법정지법을 적용하여 도산재단에 포함시키되, 담보권의 준거법 소속국의 도산법을 적용하는 견해와, ② 도산법정지법을 적용하여 도산재단에 포함시키되, 담보권의 준거법 소속국의 도산법과 도산법정지법 중 담보권자에게 유리한 법을 적용하는 견해가 설득력이 있다고 본다. 이러한 도산법정지법원칙은 한국에서 도산절차가 개시된 경우는 물론 외국에서 도산절차가 개시된 경우에도 타당하다. 그러나 후자의 경우 한국에서 그 효력을 가지기 위하여는 우선 외국도산절차가 한국에서 승인되어야 한다. 그런데, 한국의 통합도산법은 자동승인제가 아니라 결정승인제를 취하므로 법원이 승인결정과 지원조치를 취함에 있어서 그 효력에 어떤 제한을 가 ... The previous Bankruptcy Act, Composition Act and Corporate Reorganization Act had been merged into, and were replaced by, the Act on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Debtor, so-called the Consolidated Insolvency Act (the “Insolvency Act”) as of April 1, 2006. In the cross-border insolvency proceedings, various issues that normally do not arise in the context of pure domestic insolvency proceedings may arise. Those issues include, among others, the following: (a) inbound effect of foreign insolvency proceeding, i.e., recognition of foreign insolvency proceeding, (b) outbound effect of domestic insolvency proceeding, (c) concurrent proceedings, (d) cooperation with foreign courts and foreign representatives, and (e) choice of law issues. In this article, the auther analyses the choice of law issues in the cross-border insolvency. The provisions dealing with the cross-border insolvency are set forth mainly in Chapter V of the Insolvency Act, namely Articles 628 through 642. However there is no provision at all dealing with the choice of law issues in the cross-border insolvency. This is because the Insolvency Act has followed the approach of the “Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency” (the “Model Law”), which was adopted by the UNCITRAL in May 1997. Accordingly, the formulation of the choice of law rules are left to the judges and scholars. In addition, the Conflict of Laws Act of Korea has no provisions directly dealing with the choice of law issues in the cross-border insolvency. In this regard, the author pays attention to the detailed choice of law rules of the “Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings” of the Council of the European Union (the “EU Regulation”) and of the Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung) of the Federal Republic of Germany which was amended in 2003. In conclusion, under the Conflict of Laws Act and the Insolvency Act, the author suggests that the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be, in principle, that of the state within the territory of which insolvency proceedings are opened, i.e. lex fori concursus. The rationale behind this rule is that it is consistent with the principle of equal treatment of creditors and could ensure the legal certainty in the context of cross-border insolvency. More concretely, the author argues that the lex fori concursus shall determine the conditions for the opening of insolvency proceedings, their conduct and their closure. Accordingly those matters enumerated in Article 4, Paragraph 2 of EU Regulation shall be governed by the lex fori concursus. In fact there is a precedent of the Korean Supreme Court of December 24, 2001 which adopted the principle of lex fori concursus under the previous Bankruptcy Act. However, the author admits that several issues could be subject to special rules for exceptions to the principle of lex fori consursus. In this regard, the author analyses these special rules enumerated in Articles 5 through 15 of the EU Regulation to determine whether similar principles could be applied by the Korean courts in the cross-border insolvency. In particular, the author analyses Article 5 (third parties' rights in rem), Article 6 (set-off), Article 7 (reservation of title), the effects of insolvency proceedings on executory contracts to which the debtor is party (Articles 8 and 10) and Article 13 (detrimental acts) and expresses his views as to whether the special rules set forth in those provisions could be acceptable under the Korean Conflict of Laws Act and the Insolvency Act. By way of example, Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the EU Regulation provides that the opening of insolvency proceedings shall not affect the rights in rem of creditors or third parties in respect of tangible or intangible, moveable or immoveable assets belonging to the debtor which are situated within the territory of another Member State at the time of the opening of proceedings. However, since the Insolvency ...

중국의 과경(국제)파산절차의 승인 및 지원 제도에 관한 최근의 동향

박동매 한국채무자회생법학회 2022 회생법학 Vol.25 No.-

In accordance with the policy to encourage overseas expansion, the scale of overseas investment by Chinese companies is continuously increasing. some domestic enterprises and local multinational companies have been actively or passively involved in cross-border insolvency cases, Correspondingly, many domestic enterprises and local multinational companies have been actively or passively involved in cross-border insolvency cases, However, a comprehensive cross-border insolvency legal system has yet not be established in China, so a cross-border insolvency system is imminent. In view of this, this paper chooses the core issue of the cross-border insolvency system-the recognition and assistance of cross-border insolvency procedures as the research focus, and analyzes the necessity of the recognition and assistance system of cross-border insolvency procedures. And on the basis of exploring the basis for recognition and assistance in cross-border insolvency procedures, analyze the conditions of recognition and the ways of assistance and relief one by one, at last, this paper, combined with the current situation of China, put forward some suggestions on building a recognition and assistance system for cross-border insolvency procedures with Chinese characteristics and in line with the national conditions of China.

일본의 국제도산법제에 관한 검토

김영주(Kim Young Ju) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.1

Cross-border insolvency cases can involve either a single case where the debtor's assets are located in multiple jurisdictions or the insolvency of multiple members of a cross-border group resulting in concurrent insolvency proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. In 2000, Japan enacted the Law of Recognition and Assistance for Foreign Insolvency Proceedings (LRAFIP) which adopted almost all the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, and abolished the notorious territorialism contained in Japanese insolvency laws for so many years. Since the LRAFIP became effective in 2002, only two cases have been filed, calling for recognition and assistance under the LRAFIP. Also, in Korea, from 2006, the new era of bankruptcy law governing international insolvency began. The previous three bankruptcy laws - Bankruptcy Act, Composition Act, and Corporate Reorganization Act - have been merged into, and were replaced by, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of Korea. One of the most important changes on the Act (DRBAK) is the introduction of “universalism” of an international insolvency part. This Paper introduces international insolvency law regime, especially Japanese law involving insolvency proceedings. Also, by researching Japanese international insolvency cases under Japanese legal system, the international insolvency regime in Korea. Although Korea established new universalism system with respect to international insolvency problems, the research and the study of effects and values of new system is still necessary. Paper proposes that international suitability and global fitness in international insolvency regime in Korea. Although Korea established new universalism system with respect to international insolvency problems, the research and the study of effects and values of new system is still necessary.

도산법제와 해사법제가 충돌하는 경우에 법원 간의 공조를 통한 해결방안에 관한 검토

박민준 사법발전재단 2020 사법 Vol.1 No.51

여러 나라 사이에 선박을 운항하는 채무자에 대하여 도산절차가 진행되는 경우에는 채권자들의 권리행사가 집단적으로 이루어지는 도산법제와 개별 채권자의 권리구제를 중시하는 해사법제 사이에 기본적으로 충돌이 발생할 수 있다. 특히, 현재로서는 도산절차와 해사법제에 따른 절차가 접하는 국면에서 외국주절차인 도산절차의 개시, 그러한 외국주절차의 승인, 채무자 선박에 대한 압류의 각 순서에 따라서 사건의 전개 양상이 달라진다. 이로 인하여 경제적인 비효율 및 일관되지 아니한 결론이 발생할 수 있는 문제점이 있다. 한편 도산절차와 관련하여 각국 사이의 협력을 강화하기 위한 노력은 지속적으로 이루어졌고, 이에 따라 국제도산모델법이 성안되어 많은 국가에서 채택되었을 뿐만 아니라, 국제도산약정이 여러 사건에서 활용되어 왔다. 또한, 최근에는 각국의 법원들 사이에 도산 사건에서 상호 간의 공조에 관한 보다 구체적인 규범이 형성되기 시작하였다. 이러한 상황하에서 도산법제와 해사법제 사이의 충돌 문제와 관련하여서도 법원 간 공조의 가능성에 기초한 해결방안들이 주장되고 있다. 우선 상호주의적인 예양을 통한 해결방안이 주장되고 있는데, 이에 의하면 선박을 압류한 국가의 법원에서는 채무자의 주된 이익의 중심지가 소재한 국가에서 도산절차가 진행되게 되면 선박을 외국도산절차의 대표자에게 전달하고, 그러한 외국도산절차를 진행하는 법원으로서도 선박우선특권을 가지고 있는 채권자들을 포함한 해사채권자들에 대하여 그들이 선박을 압류한 국가에서 가지고 있는 우선적인 지위를 인정하여 주어야 한다는 것이다. 나아가, 상호주의적 예양에 따른 해결이라는 기본적인 방향에 동의하면서도 합성절차의 활용이 가능할 것이라는 방안도 주장되고 있는데, 이에 의하면 선박을 압류한 국가의 법원에서는 선박의 매각대금을 외국주절차가 진행되는 국가의 법원으로 송금하고, 외국주절차를 진행하는 법원에서는 압류국의 담보권자들에게 압류국의 법을 적용한 것과 같이 배당을 하자는 것이다. 이와 관련하여, 우리나라에서 채무자에 대하여 주절차인 도산절차가 진행되는 경우에 이러한 합성절차의 운용이 가능할 것인지 문제가 될 수 있겠는데, 현행 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제218조 제1항 제4호를 활용하여 합성절차의 진행과 같은 효과를 낼 수 있는 방안을 생각하여 볼 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 나아가, 합성절차를 활용한 해결방안은 결국 채무자의 선박이 매각에 이르는 것을 예정하고 있는데, 채무자가 해운회사인 경우 재건형의 도산절차를 신청하였다면 선박에 대한 압류를 해제받아 선박을 계속 운항하여 영업에 지장을 줄이고자 할 것인바, 이에 관하여 국제도산약정을 활용하는 방안을 생각하여 볼 수 있을 것이다. When an insolvency proceeding is pending for a debtor who operates ships globally, there could be a collision between insolvency law and maritime law. Under insolvency law, creditors enforce their claims collectively. On the other hand, maritime law emphasizes remedy for individual creditors. Currently, outcomes for this kind of collision are influenced by the order of the commencement of insolvency proceeding which is a main proceeding, recognition of the insolvency proceeding, and arrest or attachment of the debtor’s ship. Such outcomes may result in economically inefficient and capricious results. Meanwhile, countries have continued their efforts to strengthen cooperation with regard to insolvency proceedings. Accordingly, many countries adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, and cross-border insolvency agreements were used in many cases. In addition, courts in different jurisdictions recently started to form guidelines regarding cooperation in insolvency cases. Against this backdrop, with respect to the problem of collision between insolvency and maritime law, several solutions based on the possibility of cooperation among courts have been suggested. One of these solutions is based on reciprocal comity, under which the court in arresting country entrusts the seized ship to the foreign representative and the court overseeing the foreign proceeding recognizes the priorities of maritime creditors including maritime lienholders that could have been accorded in the arresting country. Another solution is, while basically agreeing to the solution of reciprocal comity, about using synthetic proceedings. Under this solution, the arresting court remits the sale proceeds of the debtor’s ship, and the court of the foreign proceeding distributes the proceeds to the secured creditors of arresting country as if it were applying the law of arresting country. In this regard, whether using synthetic proceedings are possible or not is arguable in Korea under current law, but there might be a way to interpret the current law to give an effect similar to using synthetic proceedings. Moreover, the solution using synthetic proceedings presumes the sale of debtor’s ship, but when the debtor is a shipping company and in some kind of rehabilitation proceeding, it would want to lift the arrest and operate the ship to reduce impact on its business. Cross-border insolvency agreements can be used in this context.

외국도산절차의 승인 제도

임치용 한국국제사법학회 2022 國際私法硏究 Vol.28 No.1

The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (‘DRBA’) which took effect on April 1, 2006 was modelled from the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency adopted in 1997 by the UNCITRAL. By the time the Korean government prepared to draft the DRBA, neither the US or Uk had enacted the 1997 Model Law as its local insolvency act. Therefore the DRBA adopted the basic mechanism of the Japanese ‘The Law on Recognition of and Assistance in Foreign Insolvency Proceedings’ that had already incorporated the 1997 Model Law. Todd Oh case was an important in the context of cross-border insolvency issues because it dealt with the issue of the effect of discharge based on a reorganization plan confirmed by a US bankruptcy court. The Korean Supreme Court applied the doctrine of recognition of foreign judgment in accordance with Section 217 of Civil Procedure Act. However academics have criticized the logic of the Supreme Court decision because the principles of recognition of foreign judgments which the Supreme Court relied on may not be applied to the recognition of a discharge order derived from foreign insolvency proceedings. The same issue was dealt in UK by the Privy Council in the Cambridge Gas case and by the UK Supreme Court in the Rubin Case. The Privy Council approached this issue relying on universalism in cross-border insolvency law but the UK Supreme Court applied the Dicey rule, a common law rule regarding jurisdiction. However US bankruptcy courts have been applying the principles of comity to the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as well as insolvency-related judgments. In order to solve problems of recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments, it is critical to revise the DRBA by adopting or incorporating the 1997 Model Law and 2018 Model Law. 2006. 4. 1.부터 시행되는 채무자회생법은 1997년 모델법을 받아들인 것이다. 당시 채무자회생법을 제정할 당시에는 미국, 영국이 아직 모델법을 채택하지 아니하였으므로 일본의 외국도산절차의 승인 및 원조에 관한 법률을 따르다 보니 모델법을 충실하게 반영하지 못하였다. 토드 오 사건에서 처음으로 미국 파산절차의 면책효력을 국내에 미치게 할 것인가 하는 점이 다루어졌다. 대법원은 민사소송법의 외국판결의 승인절차를 따랐으나 여러 가지 문제점이 있다. 미국과 영국은 1997년 모델법을 수용하였지만 외국도산절차에서 이루어지는 면책재판 또는 부인재판을 어떠한 방법으로 승인할 것인지에 관하여 입장을 달리한다. 이 문제가 어렵다는 것은 영국 樞密院의 Cambridge Gas 사건과 영국 대법원의 Rubin 사건이 입장이 다르다는 점에서 알 수 있다. 추밀원은 국제도산의 보편주의에서 접근하였고, 영국 대법원은 국제사법의 관할권에 관한 Dicey rule을 고수하고 있다. 미국은 예양의 법리를 연방파산법 제15장의 관련 조항에 반영하고 이를 통하여 외국 도산 관련 재판을 승인하고 그에 따라 지원명령을 발하는 입장이다. 부인재판이 통상의 민사판결과 다른 점을 살펴봄으로써 외국 도산 관련 재판의 특성을 알 수 있다. 이 문제에 관한 근본적인 해결은 채무자회생법 제5편을 영미와 같은 수준에서 개정하고, 2018년 외국 도산 관련 재판의 승인 및 집행에 관한 모델법을 수용하는 것이다.

국제도산에서 도산해지조항의 준거법 결정 -도산전형적 법률효과?-

최준규 서울대학교 법학연구소 2023 서울대학교 法學 Vol.64 No.1

In this article, the author analyzes the choice-of-law rules for ipso-facto clause in cross-border insolvency, in three kinds of situations(= ① insolvency proceeding in Korea, ② two parallel insolvency proceedings both in Korea and in a foreign country, and ③ insolvency proceeding in a foreign country and parallel civil procedure in Korean court where the validity of ipso-facto clause is disputed). The conclusions are as follows. 1. The concept such as 'insolvency-typical effect’ or 'procedure/substance dichotomy' can not contribute to establish the choice-of-law rules for ipso-facto clause. A solution (de lege lata) should be sought by referring to the ‘comparable specific situation’ (the choice-of-law rules for avoiding power in cross-border insolvency) rather than a ‘concept’. 2.Korean bankruptcy court, in principle, should determine the validity of ipso-facto clause in accordance with the lex fori concursus (Korean law). However, if ipso-facto clause is valid according to the lex fori contractus (foreign law), it should be the governing law in consideration of the trust of contract party, even if ipso-facto clause is invalid according to the lex fori concursus. Nonetheless, even in this case, when ipso-facto clause is regarded as invalid based on the violation of Articles 2 and 103 of the Korean Civil Code, then Korean bankruptcy court must apply the Korean law as an internationally mandatory rule. (relaxed application of lex fori concursus; situation ① above) 3. If insolvency proceeding is initiated as a main procedure in a foreign country, ‘relaxed application of lex fori concursus’ above is still applied. In other words, Korean civil court should first determine the validity of the ipso-facto clause according to the lex fori concursus (foreign law) (bilateral universalism; situation ③ above). The author's main position is that Korean civil court should be able to apply the foreign law even without the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings. However, considering the practical difficulties of implementing this position, the author secondarily proposes that the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings may be required before applying the lex fori concursus (foreign law). 4. If insolvency proceedings are initiated both in a foreign country and in Korea, in principle, Korean bankruptcy court should consider the Korean bankruptcy law as lex fori concursus and first determine the validity of ipso-facto clause in accordance with the Korean bankruptcy law. However, when the foreign insolvency proceeding is the main procedure and the Korean bankruptcy proceeding is the non-main procedure, Korean bankruptcy court should be able to flexibly apply the foreign bankruptcy law as lex fori concursus to achieve the purpose of the entire cross-border insolvency proceedings. (flexible application of the foreign law as lex fori concursus; situation ② above) If we require the recognition of the foreign insolvency proceedings in the case of 3. above, the recognition may also be required in the case of 4. 5. When it comes to making international treaty or model law, it is desirable to strengthen the universalism more than the above views and to consistently apply lex fori concursus as a governing law irrespective of the contents of lex fori contractus.

英國의 1997년 UNCITRAL 모델법의 受容과 國際倒産實務

林治龍(Rim, Chi-Yong) 한국국제사법학회 2021 國際私法硏究 Vol.27 No.2

영국의 도산법 체계는 회사와 자연인이 도산한 경우 관할권, 부인권과 관련하여서는 병행적으로 도산법이 적용되고 개인의 재건과 면책 등과 관련하여서는 배타적으로 도산법 중 특정 부분만이 적용되므로 한국법률가가 이해하기 어렵다. 개인과 회사의 재건절차와 청산절차가 통합된 것은 1986년 도산법이 제정된 때이다. 그 이전에는 회사청산과 개인파산은 별개의 법률에 의하여 발전되었다. 재건절차는 크게 구분하면 도산법의 관리절차와 회사법의 회사정리계획절차(Scheme of Arrangement)가 있다. 전자는 반드시 제3자인 도산실무가가 관리인으로 임명되고, 후자는 기존 경영진이 회사법에 의하여 회사의 채무조정과 인수합병 등을 하는 데에 사용된다. 재건절차를 제대로 이해하려면 도산법 외에 회사법도 이해하여야 한다. 영국의 국제도산법제는 유럽연합회원국 간에는 유럽연합도산규정(EU Insolvency Regulation)이 적용되고 비회원국간에는 국제연합상거래위원회가 제안한 모델법을 받아들인 국제도산규정(Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation, CBIR)이 적용된다. 2021년 브렉시트가 발효됨으로써 EU회원국에 대하여도 더 이상 유럽연합도산규정은 적용되지 아니하고, 국제법상의 예양과 CBIR이 적용되게 되었다. 영국과 미국은 모두 국제연합상거래법위원회가 채택한 국제도산에 관한 모델법을 채택하여 국내화 하였지만 주절차의 승인효과 등에 있어서 차이가 있다. 미국은 외국주절차의 승인의 효력으로서 담보권의 실행을 포함하여 자동중지의 효력이 발생하지만, 영국은 주절차가 청산절차의 경우에는 담보권의 실행을 금지 대상에서 제외하고 있다. 확립된 실무에 의하면 영국 법원은 한국의 회생절차를 국제도산규정에 의하여 주절차로 승인하고, 이미 채무자와 관련하여 영국에서 진행 중인 소송이나 중재절차에 대하여도 중지명령을 발하고 있다. English insolvency rules are complex due to the existence of multiple cross-border insolvency regimes that are applicable sometimes in parallel, and sometimes exclusively to only certain types of entities. Therefore, it can be difficult for Korean lawyers to understand these rules correctly. Insolvency proceedings in England for individuals and for companies were not unified prior to 1986, when the Insolvency Act of 1986 was established. Two separate rescue systems developed in England prior to 1986, which are (1) administration under the Insolvency Act, a process led by a third-party insolvency practitioner that is appointed as the administrator and (2) a scheme of arrangement for composition of debts and/or M&A transaction under the Companies Act, managed and carried out by the incumbent board of directors of the company. With respect to cross-border insolvencies, the UK applied the EU insolvency regulations to member states of the EU, and applied the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation of 2006 (CBIR) to non-EU member states for recognition and enforcement foreign insolvency proceedings. However, since 2021, following the UK’s exit from the EU, the UK no longer applies the EU insolvency regulation to members of the EU and applies principles of comity and the CBIR to members of EU as well too. Both the UK and US adopted the UNCITRAL MODEL Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, but the effects of recognition of foreign main insolvency proceedings are different in each country. It is firmly settled under UK law that pending litigation or arbitration proceedings in the UK involving a Korean debtor are stayed when an English court recognizes the debtor’s Korean rehabilitation proceeding as the foreign main proceeding.