채권양도와 개인정보보호

최명구 한국민사법학회 2008 民事法學 Vol.40 No.-

Information of claim and obligor is assigned from assignor to assignee by the contract for the assignment of claim. Under Korea Civil Act assignability nature of claim, requisite for Setting up Assignment of nominative claim against obligor, effect of consent or notice and notice of assignment and estoppel are ordained, and by article 67 of civil execution act, it is also ordained to submit the property catalog clarifying the properties subject. Other statutes related to claim assignment includes company of securitization of rental housing act and asset-backed securitization act. However, these ordainments doesn't cover personal information protection. It's only regulated to acquire agreement from users when accessing users' personal information in statutes as use and protection of credit information act and act on promotion of information and communications network utilization and information protection, etc. Thus, there is no concrete ordainment in these statutes as to personal information protection of obligor in claim assignment. And for this reason, problem occurs as to personal information protection of obligor in claim assignment. Meanwhile, three personal information protection acts is recently submitted to National Assembly, but still being not able to pass the National Assembly. These act concretely does regulate personal information protection, but not doing so in consideration of claim assignment. Due to this deficiency of related regulations, personal information in claim assignment turned up as a big problem. Since it's general to contain obligors' privacy in information of obligors provided to assignees under claim assignment contract, obligors' privacy protection is important. How would the obligor's privacy be protected? In connection with this question, obligor would be protected with establishment of behavioral criterion of assginors in claim circulation market, contrivance of a step-by-step system in providing information of obligors, managing, obligee's separate management of obligor's information, expansion of range requiring obligor's agreement. This thesis is comprises of property and contents of claim assignment, contents of statutes related to claim assignment and personal informatoin, major points of personal information protection act in order.

遺留分返還請求權이 債權者代位權의 目的이 되는지 與否 - 日本에서의 論議를 바탕으로 한 從來 國內의 通說에 대한 批判的 檢討

鄭求兌(Kutae Chung) 한국가족법학회 2008 가족법연구 Vol.22 No.1

  The prevalent view in Korea on the claim of return for secured portions was that it is not a right which is strictly personal to the obligor, whether in terms of its vesting or its exercise. However the rationale behind such thinking is unclear. In Japan the topic has been the subject of a great deal of debate, with the Supreme Court having ruled against the matter in 2001. Therefore the author shall, in this paper, undertake a critical examination of the view that considers the claim of return for secured portions to be subject to subrogative exercise. Cases and theories in Japan will be used to support the above arguments, thereby concluding that as a rule the claim of return for secured portions, being a right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise, cannot be the subject of the obligee’s right of subrogation to the obligor, unless there are special circumstances that recognize the forfeiture of nature of the right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise. A brief overview of the central arguments is given below.<BR>  The main reason why Korean Civil Law initially recognizes as valid the succeeded person’s inter vivos disposition or bequest that infringes on secured portions and thereby, on the one hand respects the freedom of disposition of the succeeded person, and on the other hand allows the right holder of the secured portions to exercise his or her claim of return within the short exercise period in order to recover the secured portions, seems to be due to the following - the fact that our law deems it appropriate for the regulation between the personal relationship and property relationship to be determined by the free will of the right holder of the secured portions who is in a personal relationship. Whether the right holders of the secured portions exercise the claim of return will depend not only on their economic considerations but also on their relationships with the succeeded person as well as other co-successors who will be the counter party of the claim for return. Due to the fact that personal considerations play such an important role, the decision of the right holder of secured portions should not be influenced by his or her creditor.<BR>  Therefore even though the right holder of secured portions may be insolvent, intervention through the obligee’s right of subrogation to the obligor by the creditors in the personal determination of the right holder of secured portions, would infringe on the latter’s freedom of choice, which is also intertwined with his or her personality. This corresponds with the fact that a disclaimer of inheritance cannot be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.<BR>  However if there are special circumstances revealing the conclusive intention of the secured portions right holder to assign his or her claim of return, then the subrogative exercise of the claim of return would be possible, given that there is no need to emphasize the personal nature of the right of secured portions in terms of its exercise. However even here it is necessary to determine, based on specific case law, precisely what, including the assignment of the claim of return of secured portions, constitutes an expression of the secured portion right holder’s intention.

점유취득시효 완성자의 대상청구권

여미숙 사법발전재단 2021 사법 Vol.1 No.55

Although there is no provision on the claim right of vicarious compensation in the Korean Civil Act, the majority theory and precedents understand that it is a general remedy of creditors in case of the impossibility of performance and the money earned from the debtor's sale of real estate is also a vicarious compensation. The Civil Act stipulates that a person who has completed acquisitive prescription by possession shall acquire the ownership by making registration. Precedents state that the acquisitive prescription completed person has the right to claim for registration against the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisitive prescription, but not against the person who acquires the ownership after the completion of the acquisitive prescription. The theory on whether the acquisitive prescription completed person has the claim right of vicarious compensation when the owner is unable to fulfill the obligation to transfer the registration depends on the view on the legal status of the acquisitive prescription completed person and the legal nature of the right to request registration. The fact that Article 245(1) of the Civil Act requires making registration for the acquisitive prescription completed person to acquire the ownership is meaningful in that it can clarify legal relations and promote the safety of transactions because the timing of the change in ownership may be unclear and disputes may arise if the ownership is acquired without making registration only by completing the acquisition prescription for real estate registered in the name of another person. Under the above provision, the acquisitive prescription completed person acquires the status to request the registration against the owner, and the right to claim for registration is referred to as a right to demand claims of creditor. Precedents admit tort liability when the owner disposes of the real estate after the completion of the acquisitive prescription even though he/she knows the fact. The precedents and the theory in support thereof affirm the claim right of vicarious compensation of the acquisitive prescription completed person only when he/she asserted the right or exercised the right to request registration before the owner's inability to perform, which is similar to the requirement for the recognition of tort liability. The disposition of the real estate by the owner who is obligated to transfer registration to the acquisitive prescription completed person results in the impossibility of performance. This is not a problem of tort liability, but liability for default of obligation. It has no justifiable ground to limit the claim right of vicarious compensation of the acquisitive prescription completed person according to the right to claim damages for tort which differs in nature and function. It is not logical to try to adjust the interests by limiting the responsibilities of the owner to a certain range while viewing the right to claim for registration as a right to demand claims of creditor. Even though it is difficult to expect the occupant to exercise the right to request registration immediately after the completion of the acquisitive prescription, requesting this means not recognizing the claim right of vicarious compensation. It has an unfair result that the occupant who was able to acquire the ownership of the real estate cannot obtain the profit on its behalf. In particular, when the real estate is expropriated, the owner does not bear the liability for damages due to the inability to fulfill the registration obligation and obtains unexpected profits, which is contrary to the ideology of fairness. Claim right of vicarious compensation is the return of the profits earned by the debtor in place of performance of obligations and there is no basis to consider that Article 245(1) excludes that the profits go to the creditor. The owner must return the profits obtained from the impossibility of performance to the acquisitive presc... 우리 민법에는 대상청구권에 관한 규정이 없으나 다수의 학설과 판례의 태도와 같이 이행불능의 일반적인 효과로서 대상청구권을 인정하고, 채무자가 목적물을 매도하여 얻은 매매대금에 대하여도 대상청구권을 인정하는 것이 타당하다. 민법은 점유취득시효기간이 만료된 부동산의 점유자는 등기함으로써 소유권을 취득한다고 규정하고 있고, 판례에 따르면 시효완성자는 시효완성 당시의 소유자에 대하여 등기청구권을 가지나 시효완성 후에 새로이 소유권을 취득한 자에 대하여는 시효취득을 주장할 수 없다. 취득시효 완성 후 소유권이 이전되어 소유자가 등기의무를 이행할 수 없게 된 경우 시효완성자의 대상청구권을 인정할 것인지 여부에 관하여는 시효완성자의 법적 지위 및 시효완성자가 소유자에 대하여 가지는 등기청구권의 법적 성질을 어떻게 보느냐에 따라 견해를 달리한다. 민법 제245조 제1항이 점유취득시효로 인한 소유권 취득에 등기를 요건으로 규정하고 있는 것은 타인 명의로 등기된 부동산에 대하여도 점유취득시효를 인정하는 특수한 입법하에서 취득시효 완성으로 등기 없이 소유권을 취득하게 되는 경우 권리변동의 시기가 불분명하여 분쟁을 초래할 수 있으므로 법률관계를 명확히 하고 거래의 안전을 도모할 수 있다는 점에 의미가 있는바, 위 규정에 의할 때 시효완성자는 소유자에 대하여 시효완성으로 인한 등기를 청구할 수 있는 지위를 취득하고 그 등기청구권은 채권적 청구권이라고 할 것이다. 판례는 소유자가 취득시효 완성 후 그 사실을 알고도 부동산을 처분한 경우 불법행위책임을 인정하는데, 시효완성자의 대상청구권에 관한 판례와 이를 지지하는 학설은 시효완성자의 등기청구권을 채권적 청구권이라고 보면서도 시효완성자의 대상청구권에 관하여 위 불법행위 성립기준과 유사하게 시효완성자가 소유자의 이행불능 전에 권리를 주장하거나 등기청구권을 행사한 경우에 한하여 이를 인정한다. 그러나 취득시효 완성 후 소유자가 그 부동산을 처분하는 행위는 채무자인 소유자가 시효완성자에 대하여 부담하고 있는 채무를 스스로 이행불능에 빠뜨리는 것이어서 원칙적으로 불법행위가 아니라 채무불이행 문제가 되며, 일반 대상청구권과 달리 시효완성자의 대상청구권을 본질과 기능이 다른 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구권에 맞추어 제한하는 것은 정당한 근거가 없으며, 시효완성자의 소유자에 대한 등기청구권을 채권적 청구권으로 보면서 소유자의 책임을 일정 범위로 제한하여 시효완성자와 소유자의 이익을 조정하려는 것은 논리가 일관되지 않는다. 또한 시효완성자가 시효완성 후 바로 등기청구권을 행사할 것을 기대하기 어려움에도 이를 요구하는 것은 사실상 대상청구권을 인정하지 않는 것이 되어 부동산의 소유권을 취득할 수 있었던 시효완성자가 이를 대신하는 이익은 얻을 수 없다는 불공평한 결과를 가져오며, 특히 소유자가 부동산을 처분한 경우가 아닌 부동산이 수용된 경우에는 소유자는 등기의무를 이행할 수 없게 된 데에 따른 손해배상책임도 부담하지 않으면서 예상하지 못한 이익을 얻는 부당한 결과가 생기게 되므로 시효완성자의 대상청구권의 요건을 제한하는 것은 공평의 이념에 반한다. 민법 제245조 제1항에 의하여 성립하는 소유자와 시효완성자 사이의 채권채무관계가 다른 법정채권채무관계와 달리 목적물의 ...

소유물반환청구권과 부당이득반환청구권의 경합 여부와 과실반환문제

이근영 민사법의 이론과 실무학회 2016 民事法理論과 實務 Vol.19 No.2

재화가 정당한 권리자에게 귀속되지 않는 경우에 그 부당성을 시정하기 위한 제도는 일반적인 제도는 부당이득제도이다. 그러나 이외에도 민법이 개별적으로 규정하는 제도 중의 하나가 점유자와 회복자 사이의 법률관계에 관한 민법 제201조 내지 제203조 규정이다. 통설은 제201조 내지 제203조를 소유물반환청구권(제213조)의 부수적 청구권으로 이해한다. 이와 관련하여 소유물반환청구권과 부당이득반환청구권이 경합하는지 여부와 경합하는 경우 소유물반환청구권의 부수청구권인 제201조 내지 제203조와 관련하여 과실반환여부가 논란이 되고 있다. 본 논문은 이에 대한 해석론의 전개하면서 필요한 부분에서는 사견을 제시하였다. 부당이득반환청구시의 반환범위에 관한 기존의 학설은 제748조에 의한다고 한다. 사견으로는 악의수익자의 경우에는 선의수익자의 경우 제748조 제1항은 선의수익자의 가액반환시의 반환범위이며, 원물반환의 경우에는 선의수익자의 경우는 제741조가 규정하고 있다고 본다. 악의수익자의 경우에는 원물반환·가액반환 모두 제748조 제2항에 의한다. 제201조와 제748조의 선의·악의의 개념은 서로 차이가 있다. 점유법상 선의·악의는 부당이득법상 선의·악의에 비하여 범위가 매우 좁은 개념이다. 계약관계의 급부부당이득에서 원물반환이 가능한 경우, 반환하여야 할 대상이 계약에 근거하여 이행된 것이므로 계약을 통해 형성된 구속의 내용은 당연히 그 계약의 청산과정까지도 책임지도록 하거나 부당이득에 의하는 것이 바람직하므로, 제213조와 제741조의 경합은 발생하지 않는다. 이 경우 제201조가 적용되지 않고 부당이득반환에 의하여야 하며, 그 반환범위는 선의수익자의 경우 제741조, 악의수익자의 경우 제748조 제2항에 의할 것이다. 다만 원물반환이 가능한 계약관계가 아닌 사무관리와 같은 법정채권관계에서는 제213조와 제741조의 경합은 인정될 수 있다. 이 경우 제213조의 부수청구권인 제201조와 제741조(선의수익자) 내지 제748조 제2항(악의수익자)의 경합할 수 있으며, 이들 청구권은 별도의 청구권이므로 당연히 개별적인 청구권의 발생요건을 갖추어야 하고, 그에 따른 법적 효력이 달리 규정될 수 있으므로 그에 따른 법적 효과는 당연히 다를 수 있다고 본다. 침해부당이득의 경우에는 원물반환이 가능한 경우에는 제213조와 제741조가 경합하며, 이 경우 제201조와 제741조(선의수익자), 제748조 제2항(악의수익자)이 경합한다. The restitution of unjust enrichment may be brought against a person illegally acquiring any goods. Civil law also prescribes a legal relationship between a possessor and a person claiming recovery as §§201-203 of the Korean Code of Civil Procedure are viewed as an incidental right of claim for the right to claim the return of the articles owned(§213). With respect to this, it has been controversial weather the right to claim the return of the articles owned conflicts with the right to claim of the restitution of unjust enrichment, and if so, weather the return of the fruits can be claimed as provided in §§201-203, the incidental right of claim. In this regard, this article seeks to introduce legal theories and opinions regarding the dispute. Previous literatures claim that the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the illegal occupant of goods is based on §748. With respect to this, what I believe is that a possessor in good faith applies to §748① in terms of the scope of the return of value while the possessor applies to Article 741 in terms of the return of the original object. In contrast, a possessor in bad faith applies to §748② in terms of both the return of the original object and value. In fact, there is a disparity in the concept of good faith and bad ones under §201 and §748. The definition of both good and bad faiths is much narrower in the law of occupation than in the law of unjust enrichment. When the return of the original object is likely to be claimed when it comes to the unjust enrichment by performance in contractual relationship, the return of the object is under contract that stipulates the responsibilities of both parties until the termination of contract. In that case, no conflict arises between §213 and §741 but the restitution of unjust enrichment prevails. More specifically, a person enriched in good faith applies to Article 741 while a person enriched in bad faith applies to §748②. In contrast to the contract relationship that imposes the responsibility for the return of the original object, however, legal claims may beget a conflict between §213 and §741. In this case, there is a conflict between the §201, the incidental right of claim of §213 and §741(a person enriched in good faith) or §748② a person enriched in bad faith. Under this circumstance, the right of claim should be implemented, which may result in varied legal forces for each claim. With respect to the unjust enrichment not by performance in which a person is entitled to the return of the original object, §213 is in conflict with §741, and §201 and §741(person enriched in good faith) and §748②(a person enriched in bad faith).

일하는 사람의 인격권 보호에 관한 일고찰

최홍기 한국노동법학회 2023 노동법학 Vol.- No.87

All working people are granted the right to be respected as an entity with human dignity and value in the process of providing labor service. However, their personal interests are often infringed in the process of providing labor service. In response, there are ongoing Labor Act-related discussions on need to find solutions by focusing on concept of “Personal Right” to protect working people. In awareness of the importance of active discussions on personal rights in terms of the Labor Act, this study identified the nature of personal right, examined the solutions for protecting the working people from personal interest infringement, and explored future tasks. In general, “Personal Right” means the right to enjoy the personal interest regarding natural personality expression and right inseparable from each individual, the right to form, maintain, and protect the personality, and right to keep the personality intact from distortion, deformation, and damage. Recently, there have been many discussions in the Labor Act on the concept of “Labor Personality Right” based on the labor right and personality right to protect the working people. However, in order to expand the discussions and seek flexible legal protection of the working people based on the comprehensive and open concept of personal right, it is necessary to have detailed and flexible discussions on protection of right and types of relief for each labor service type based on the general personal right. Meanwhile, the current Labor Relations Act does not have a separate regulation on a subsequent relief measure for personal right infringement. As a result, any personal interest infringement in labor service is widely handled by separately charging compensation of damage to infringer or employer. Nevertheless, such a compensation system is limited to a legal system for correcting or recovering the right of working people infringed by workplace harassment. It requires excessive time and cost to proceed with the lawsuit, and the infringed rights are not recovered completely. Especially, the right of the working people is not protected enough because the amount of compensation for infringement of mental personality right is still small. Thus, it is necessary to diversify the relief for personal right infringements, such as workplace harassment, activate prohibition claim and provisional disposition system for preliminary relief, and legislate the system to exercise the right to refuse work.

제3자에 의한 채권침해의 입법화 방안

김현선(Kim, Hyeon Son) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.4

Nowadays, it is very frequently happen that the claim is not realized its perform with infringement or it is get in the way by the third person because the scope of transaction is enlarged day by day and diversified the types of transactions in the economic life. This is the issue of claim infringement by the third person. The claim infringement by the third person was introduced firstly in the United Kingdom case, and the issue of this legal agenda discussed when Germany, French, Japan Civil Code enacted but legislature was failed. This issue is directly included in the second Restatement of Torts law in United States even she lately treated this question. The claim infringement by the third person is not substantive enactment in the specific act but individual jurisdiction court case and academic theory coincidently accepted the issues. In addition, claim infringement by the third person may possible with negligence; however it was only approved with intent in the past. Furthermore, many states have researched the types of claim infringement. The claim infringement currently firmly fixed with recognized in the academic dogma and court decision in this way and the protection area of claim is expanded step by step. Besides, the claim is included by regarding it as an important damage as we see and revised draft of French Civil Code, principle of EU torts law and principle of EU indemnification for damage, revised draft of Japanese Civil Code are included in the statutes to meet the global standard. Currently, Korean government under revising the Civil Code, I would suggest the claim infringement by the third person should be incorporated in the statute to satisfied the international standard and dogma and precedent are agreed the principle may applied the case in the subject matter. Therefore this piece may contribute on that point exactly and can be a good literature.

손해사정법인 사무원의 환경적합성이 이직의도에 미치는 영향 - 인보험 심사ㆍ조사업무 중심으로 -

최강해 ( Ganghae Choi ),김명규 ( Myungkyu Kim ) 한국손해사정학회 2017 손해사정연구 Vol.16 No.-

우리나라의 손해사정 제도는 지난 1977년 보험업법의 개정을 통해 보험사고로 인한 손해액을 신속·공정하게 조사하고, 소비자와 보험사 양자의 발생 가능한 분쟁을 사전 예방하고자 만들어진 제도이다. 이러한 손해사정은 손해사정사라는 전문자격인으로 하여금 업무를 수행토록 하고 다양한 유형으로 운영되는 손해사정 실무를 담당하는 보조인(사무원)이 실질적인 업무를 수행하고 있다. 따라서 손해사정업무의 효과 및 효율적 업무 진행 등은 업무 사무원의 근무 등 적합성과 매우 관련이 있음에도 불구하고 관련 연구는 찾아보기 힘든 실정이다. 이 연구는 한국 보험업의 가장 기초적 구성원이라 할 수 있는 손해사정업무사무원을 대상으로 환경적합성이 이직의도에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 살펴보았다. 연구결과로 직장 구성원의 경우 최근 근무 경향이 인적 관계 보다는 직무와 직장이 그리고 책임감 등이 손해사정업무 사무원에게는 중요한 요인인 것으로 분석되었다. 결론적으로 손해사정업계는 효율적이고 더 좋은 성과를 위해서는 사무원이 인식하는 조직적합성과 직무적합성을 높일 수 있는 방안의 마련이 시급하다고 할 것이다. There are many accidents in our society. Insurance is a system that economically prepares these accidents and risks. As our society continues to develop, insurance systems are also developing. In the event of an accident, the insured person will receive the insurance premium according to the details of the subscription. The Claims Adjusting System is an expert who calculates insurance claims. In 1977 the Claims Adjusting System begins the revision of insurance law in Korea. This system was designed to process insurance accidents fairly and quickly. It was made to prevent disputes between insurance companies and customers. Although Claims Adjusters work, but most of the work is done by the worker. Therefore, it is very important for workers to Claims Adjusting System. However, the research of the Claims Adjusting System workers is very insufficient. In this study, I conducted the environmental fitness and turnover intentions of Claims Adjusting System workers. . The research hypothesis and conclusion is as follows. H1. The organizational fit of the Claims Adjusting System workers will have a negative effect on the turnover intention. H2. The job fit of the Claims Adjusting System workers will have a negative effect on the turnover intention. H3. The superior fit of the Claims Adjusting System workers will have a negative effect on the turnover intention. H4. The peer fit of the Claims Adjusting System workers will have a negative effect on the turnover intention. The results of the study are as follows. The organizational fit, the job fit, the superior fit, the peer fit and the self-efficacy of the Claims Adjusting System workers had a negative effect on turnover intention. This result provides a more appropriate characteristic when the employee's character and company atmosphere are similar. Therefore, the company must find what the workers need and needs that must find jobs that the employee likes. In other words, the company must identify the employee's interests, values, abilities and aptitudes. However, peer conformance is less important than other fit. In other words, organizational fit, job fit, and superior fit are more important. The study on Claims Adjusting System etc is very insufficient. Various efforts are needed to develop the insurance industry in Korea.

교통사고 피해자에 대한 보험금지급에 기한 보험자대위의 허용 여부

윤찬영(Yoon, Chan-Young) 한국법학원 2011 저스티스 Vol.- No.125

자동차종합보험의 피보험자가 타인과 공동하여 교통사고를 일으켜 제3자에게 인적, 물적 피해를 입힘으로써 공동불법행위가 성립하는 경우에 피해자인 제3자는 보험자에게 보험금을 직접 청구하여 수령할 수 있다(상법 제724조 제2항). 보험자가 피해자에게 보험금을 선지급한 경우에 그 피보험자는 공동불법행위자에 대하여 구상권을 행사할 수 있고, 보험자는 그 구상권을 대위행사할 수 있다(상법 제682조). 나아가 일부 대법원 판례는 보험자가 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여도 그 구상권을 대위행사할 수 있다고 한다. 하지만, 피보험자는 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여는 아무런 권리를 취득하지 못하므로, 이러한 판례의 태도는 옳지 않다. 이에 대하여 보험금을 선지급한 보험자로 하여금 공동불법행위자의 보험자에 대하여 민법의 변제자대위에 기하여 피해자의 직접 청구권을 대위행사 할 수 있도록 하자는 견해가 있다. 하지만 변제자대위의 대상이 되는 직접청구권은 손해배상청구권과 법률적 성질이 동일하므로, 손해 및 가해자를 안 날로부터 3년의 소멸시효에 걸리게 된다. 이 경우 불법행위자의 보험자가 공동불법행위자에 대한 구상권을 대위행사하는 경우에 비하여 시효기간이 지나치게 짧아지는 시효기간의 불균형 문제가 야기된다. 현재 판례의 주류는 피해자에 대하여 직접 책임을 부담하는 가해자들의 보험자들 상호간에 직접 구상권을 인정 한다. 위 판례는 명문 규정 없이 구상권을 지나치게 확장시켜 인정한다는 점 등이 문제점으로 지적될 수 있으나, 보험자대위를 인정하는 판례에 비하여 논리적 완결성이 뛰어나고, 변제자대위를 인정하는 견해에 비하여 시효기간 불균형 문제가 해소되어, 차선책으로 채택할 만하다. 이러한 직접 구상권의 소멸시효에 관하여 일부 판례는 상사채권의 그것과 같이 5년으로 인정하고 있으나 이는 일반채권과 같이 10년으로 하는 것이 타당하다. 다만, 제3자의 물적 피해 사안의 경우에는 자동차손해배상보장법상의 무과실 책임이 적용되지 않으므로, 사후적으로 과실이 없는 것으로 판단된 교통사고 당사자는 공동불법행위책임을 부담하지 않게 된다. 따라서 이러한 경우에는 교통사고 당사자들 및 그 보험자들 사이에서 구상권이 성립하지 않으나, 보험금을 선지급한 보험자는 상대 가해자 및 그 보험자에게 피해자의 손해배상청구권을 민법의 변제자대위에 기하여 대위행사할 수 있을 것이다. When the insured party of comprehensive automobile insurance has caused a traffic accident in joint another person and inflicted personal and/or material damage upon a third person, thus establishing joint tort, the victim third party may directly demand for the insurer to indemnify any loss attributable to the insured (Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act). If the insurer of one party has paid the insured amount to the injured party in advance, the insured acquires a claim for reimbursement upon the third party joint tortfeasor, and the insurer can subrogate this claim (Article 682 of the Commercial Act). Some Supreme Court Decisions further expand on this stance by opining that subrogation of a claim for reimbursement can be exercised against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor as well. But such a stance errs in its conclusion because the insured party acquires no claims against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor. To address this issue, there has been a call to allow the insurer in such a case, who has already paid the insured amount, to exercise the injured party's right to direct remedy against the insurer of the joint tortfeasor. However, such a right to direct remedy, subject to subrogation by a person who has performed obligation, is legally identical in nature to a claim for damage compensation and thus expires three years after the point when the injured party becomes aware of the loss and the inflicting party. This in turn is problematic in that the period of prescription is too short, compared against the previous case of subrogation of a claim for reimbursement against the joint tortfeasor. Currently, the mainstream trend of court decisions is to acknowledge a direct claim for reimbursement between the respective insurers of the tortfeasors, who are directly obligated to pay the injured party's claim. This judicial stance could be objected to for recognizing too broad a scope for the claim for reimbursement, but still remains logically superior to the stance of acknowledging subrogation of the claim, while solving the issue of imbalance between prescription periods in the case of subrogation by a person who has performed obligation, and thus remains a viable choice to consider. Some court decisions have set a period of prescription of five years for direct remedy in such cases, identical to that of a commercial claim, but the period of prescription should rather be set as ten years as is recognized for a general claim. In the case of material damage to the third person, however, non-negligent liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act cannot be applied, thus exempting any party to the accident eventually found to be free of negligence from any joint tort liability. Hence, in such a case a claim for reimbursement cannot be established between the parties and/or their respective insurers, but the insurer who has already paid the insurance amount is still able to exercise its subrogation right for the victim's damage claim against the other inflicting party and its insurer, in correspondence with subrogation by a person who has performed obligation as provided under the Civil Act.

1965년 한일청구권협정 제2조의 해석에 관한 관견(管見)

김어진 ( Kim Eo-jin ),정구태 ( Chung Ku-tae ) 건국대학교 법학연구소 2021 一鑑法學 Vol.0 No.48

본 연구의 목적은 한일청구권협정으로 반인도적 범죄로 인한 중대한 인권침해 피해자의 개인배상청구권이 소멸하였다고 볼 수 있는지의 여부를 검토하는 것이다. 한일청구권협정의 ‘청구권’과 그 범위가 문제된 것은 한일청구권협정 제2조의 해석 차이로 인함이다. 조약의 해석은 비엔나협약 제31조, 제32조를 통해 이루어진다. 문언상 해석이 명백하면 비엔나협약 제32조를 적용하지 않으나 한일청구권협정에는 청구권의 정의 및 범위에 관한 규정이 없어 이를 지정할 수 없다. 이에 제32조에 따라 체결 당시의 사정 및 목적을 살펴보았고, 일본 정부는 지금까지 식민지배의 불법성과 일제강점기의 반인도적 행위에 대하여 부정하고 있음과 한국 정부는 일괄처리협정을 원하였으나, 그 속에 일본의 불법성을 전제로 한 배상청구권은 포함시키지 않았으므로 한일청구권협정의 체결 목적은 샌프란시스코 조약 제4조 (a) 항을 전제로 한 재정적ㆍ민사적 채권채무관계 청산이었고, 청구권 또한 채권채무관계로 인함임을 알 수 있다. 이어 한일청구권 제2조의 ‘완전히 그리고 최종적으로 해결되었다.’는 문언과 관련하여 ‘외교적 보호권’이 문제 되었는데, 외교적 보호권 포기를 전제하기 위해서는 한일청구권협정이 일본의 국제법상 위반행위를 전제로 체결된 것이어야 한다. 이는 한일청구권협정에 애당초 해당되지 않는다고 보아야 하므로 “대한민국의 외교적 보호권도 포기되지 않았다.”는 판단이 타당하다. 한편 일제강제징용은 반인도적 범죄로 인한 중대한 인권침해 사안이므로 국제강행규정 위반사항에 해당하여 조약으로는 개인의 청구권이 소멸되지 않는다. 또한 국제강행규정 위반으로 인한 개인의 청구권이 합의로 소멸된다는 조약은 비엔나협약 제53조, 제64조에 따라 무효이므로, 한일청구권협정으로 모두 해결되었다는 ‘해결완료론’은 국제법상 노예화가 국제강행규범으로 출현된 것으로 추정되는 1980년대부터 무효로 보아야 한다. This study is to examine whether the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement can be seen as the extinction of victims’ right to personal compensation for serious human rights violations caused by crimes against humanity. The issue of the “claim right” and scope of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement is due to the difference in interpretation of Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention shall not apply to the interpretation of the treaty in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention, but it shall not be designated because there is no provision for the definition and scope of the claim. The purpose of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement was to obtain bonds under Article 4 (a) of the San Francisco Treaty, as the Japanese government has so far denied colonial rule and Japanese colonial era’s anti-humanitarian acts and did not include Japan’s right to claim compensation. In addition, the “diplomatic right” of Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement was signed on the premise of Japan’s violation of international law in order to presuppose diplomatic protection. This should not be considered to be applicable to the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement in the first place, so the judgment of the original ruling after the repatriation that “the diplomatic protection of South Korea was not given up.” On the other hand, since forced labor is a serious violation of human rights due to crimes against humanity, the treaty does not extinguish individual claims. Also, since the treaty that individuals’ right to claim for violation of international enforcement regulations is invalid under Articles 53 and 64 of the Vienna Convention, the theory of settlement completion, which was settled by the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement, should be considered invalid from the 1980s when slavery was assumed to have emerged as an international norm.

채권양도인이 채권양도의 대항요건 미충족 상태에서 채무자로부터 채권을 추심하여 수령한 금전을 임의로 사용한 경우 횡령죄의 성립 여부

최문수 사법발전재단 2022 사법 Vol.1 No.61

The gist of the subject case pertains to the question of whether the constituent elements of the crime of embezzlement, which are that: (1) the embezzled property must be in possession of another person; and (2) the embezzler must be in the position of the custodian of the property, can be considered to have been fulfilled in a case where the assignor of a claim collected the claim from the obligor, received money, and arbitrarily disposed of the money received before giving a notice of assignment. Previously, Supreme Court en banc Decision 97Do666 Decided April 15, 1999 (hereinafter “precedent”) determined that in a case such as the above, the crime of embezzlement is established, by viewing that: (1) the money received by the assignor of a claim belongs to the possession of the assignee of a claim; and (2) the assignor of a claim is in the position of a person who administers the preservation of a claim for the assignee of a claim, thereby constituting a custodian for the assignee. However, subsequent to the pronouncement of the precedent, the Supreme Court delivered a number of decisions concerning double disposition of movable property, such as Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do10479 Decided January 20, 2011, in which it rejected the establishment of a crime of breach of trust with regard to the acts assessed as nonperformance of obligations in an ordinary contractual relationship like a contract of rights transfer and a security agreement. The question of whether the stance of the precedent concerning the crime of embezzlement could be maintained as it is, in light of the orientation of the Supreme Court decisions mainly established in cases concerning a criminal breach of trust, has been at dispute, and this became a direct point of contention in the subject decision dealing with the same matter as in the precedent. There are three possible views on the abovementioned gist of the case: (1) the view affirming the establishment of the crime of embezzlement, as an extension of the precedent (first theory); (2) the view denying the establishment of the crime of embezzlement, as a reversal of the precedent (second theory); and (3) the view advocating for the adherence to the precedent, with an exception to the case where the assignor of a claim has a justifiable ground for defence, in which case the precedent does not apply and the crime of embezzlement is not established (third theory). The first theory is based on the reasoning as follows: (a) the money that the assignor of a claim collected and received from the obligor is an outcome of the exercise of a money claim, the ownership of which must naturally be reverted to the assignee, among the parties involved in the assignment of a claim, and therefore, the requirement that the property in question must be in possession of another person is satisfied; and (b) since the assignor of a claim is in the position of taking care of the management and preservation of another person’s property that was already reverted to the assignee, the entrustment relationship based on trust and confidence can be recognized between the assignor and assignee of a claim, which serves as the basis for the assignor’s position as a custodian. In the meantime, the second theory argues as follows: (a) the reversion of the ownership of a claim and the reversion of the ownership of the money received by collection of a claim are a separate issue, and since there are no grounds for viewing that the ownership of the money received by the assignor of a claim is reverted to the assignee of a claim, the requirement that the property in question should be in possession of another person cannot be considered to have been fulfilled; and (b) in a regular contractual relationship, such as the agreement to transfer a right, where the customary and fundamental characteristics of the relationship of the parties concerned are not related to the management and preservation of the property of the con... 대상판결의 쟁점은 채권양도인이 채권양도 통지를 하기 전에 채무자로부터 채권을 추심하여 금전을 수령하고 임의로 소비한 경우 횡령죄의 구성요건으로서 재물의 타인성과 보관자 지위를 인정할 수 있는지 여부이다. 종전 대법원 1999. 4. 15. 선고 97도666 전원합의체 판결(이하 ‘종전 판례’라 한다)은 이때 채권양도인이 수령한 금전은 채권양수인의 소유에 속하고, 채권양도인이 채권양수인을 위하여 채권보전에 관한 사무를 처리하는 자의 지위에 있다고 보아 보관자 지위를 인정하여 횡령죄의 성립을 긍정하였다. 그러나 종전 판례 이후 대법원은 동산 이중양도에 관한 대법원 2011. 1. 20. 선고 2008도10479 전원합의체 판결 등 다양한 이중처분 사안에서 권리이전계약·담보계약과 같은 통상적인 계약관계의 채무불이행으로 평가되는 행위에 대하여 배임죄의 성립을 부정하는 여러 건의 판결들을 선고하였다. 주로 배임죄에서 확립된 위와 같은 대법원 판례의 방향성에 비추어 횡령죄에 관한 종전 판례의 입장이 그대로 유지될 수 있는지가 문제 되었고, 종전 판례와 사안이 동일한 대상판결에서 직접적인 쟁점이 되었다. 이에 관해서는 종전 판례를 유지하여 횡령죄 성립을 긍정하는 견해(제1설), 종전 판례를 변경하여 횡령죄 성립을 부정하는 견해(제2설), 종전 판례를 유지하되 채권양도인에게 정당한 항변사유가 인정되는 경우에는 종전 판례가 적용되지 아니하고 이때는 횡령죄가 성립하지 아니한다는 견해(제3설)를 상정할 수 있다. 제1설은 채권양도인이 채무자로부터 추심하여 수령한 금전은 금전채권 행사의 결과물로서 채권양도의 당사자 사이에서 당연히 양수인에게 귀속되어야 하므로 재물의 타인성을 인정할 수 있고, 채권양도인이 이미 양수인에게 귀속된 타인의 재산에 관하여 관리 내지 보호를 대행하는 지위에 있으므로 보관자 지위의 전제가 되는 위탁신임관계를 인정할 수 있다는 점을 주된 논거로 한다. 제2설은 채권의 귀속과 이를 추심하여 수령한 금전의 소유권 귀속은 별개의 문제인데 채권양도인이 수령한 금전의 소유권이 채권양수인에게 귀속된다고 볼 근거가 없어 재물의 타인성을 인정할 수 없고, 권리이전계약과 같이 당사자 관계의 전형적·본질적 내용이 신임관계에 기초하여 계약 상대방의 재산을 보호·관리하는 데 있지 않은 통상의 계약관계에 있어서 횡령죄의 위탁신임관계를 인정할 수 없다는 점을 주된 논거로 한다. 제3설은 채권양도인이 양도의 대가를 확정적으로 지급받았는지 여부 등 개별적 법률관계에 따라서 완전한 권리를 이전하지 못한 채권양도인에게 정당한 항변사유가 인정될 수 있고, 이에 따라 행위의 배신성과 양수인의 재산권 침해 정도에 분명한 차이가 있으므로, 횡령죄의 성립에 있어서도 달리 취급되어야 한다는 취지이다. 대상판결은 심도 있는 논의를 거쳐 제2설을 다수의견으로 채택하고, 종전 판례를 변경하였다. 매매 등 권리이전계약이나 담보계약과 같이 타인의 재산 보호·관리가 본질적 의무라고 보기 어려운 계약에 관한 민사적 채무불이행으로 평가할 수 있는 행위를 형사처벌 대상으로 포섭하는 것을 배제해온 지난 10여 년간 대법원 판례의 방향성과 종전 판례를 유지할 경우 본질적으로 동일한 채무불이행 행위에 대하여 횡령죄와 배임죄의 성립을 달리 인정하게 되는 불합리를 중요하게 고려한 결과이다. 대상판결은 채권양도 ...