후유장해와 가동능력의 평가 - 대법원 85.9.24 선고, 85다카 449 판결 -

박찬주 한국사법행정학회 1985 사법행정 Vol.26 No.11

항변3분설에 대한 재검토

박찬주 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.2

The writer raises several issues laying stress on failure defence of existence of right whose defence belongs to trifurcation theory of defences. Juristic act should satisfy all the requirements irrespective of establishment-related ones or effect-related ones in order to have binding force over the opposite party. When the requirements are classified into two categories such as establishment-related ones or effect-related ones, a troublesome problem follows inevitably whether the bearer of proving those classified requirements also be differentiated according to the character of requirements. Almost all the scholars hold that the proving party about establishment-related requirements does not bear the burden of proving effect-related ones. Instead, they hold that the burden falls on the submitting party asserting the juristic act null and void. The writer does not agree to such holds. The writer’s stressing points are as follows: ① if the effect-related requirements belong to ones of judgment by authority, discussion about apportionment of proof responsibility is not necessary. ② Acts devoid of mental capacity lacks the intent to form legal relation and that lack prevents establishing juristic acts. These reasonings can be extended to other effect-related requirements. Based on these grounds, the writer reaches to the conclusion failure defences of existence of right does not correspond to real defences but to negative assertions. So submitting party’s purpose of such submission can be interpreted as to prevent judges from reaching the level of required degree of conviction. This essay treats several other topics such as postponement defence of right. The writer concludes as follows: presumed defences belonging to postponement defences are quite various, so unified notion of postponement defence of right is hard to hold.

적응필터를 사용한 수직상태 SDINS 전달정렬

박찬주,이상정,Park, Chan-Ju,Lee, Sang-Jeong 한국군사과학기술학회 2007 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.10 No.1

This paper proposes SDINS(strapdown inertial navigation system) transfer alignment method for vertical launcher using an adaptive filter in the ship. First, the velocity and attitude matching transfer alignment method is designed to align SDINS for vertical launcher. Second, the adaptive filter is employed to estimate measurement noise variance in real time using the residual of measurements. Because it is difficult to decide measurement noise variance when noise properties of the ship SDINS are changed. To verify its performance, it is compared with the EKF(Extended Kalman filter) using uncorrect measurement variance. The monte carlo simulation results show that proposed method is more effective in estimating attitude angle than EKF.

문예(文藝),문화(文化) : 관계의 시작

박찬주 법조협회 2011 法曹 Vol.60 No.7

經營判斷과 危險選好的 意思決定

박찬주 대한변호사협회 2006 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.357

經營判斷의 法則이란 상당한 주의를 기울여 신중하게 행동하여야 할 이사가 경영판단을 함에 있어 신중치 못하거나 순수한 실수로 회사에 손해가 발생하더라도 판단이 회사에게 최선의 이익을 가져온다고 믿고 선의로 이루어진 경우에는 발생한 손해에 대해 책임을 지지 아니한다는 原理를 말하는 것으로 우리나라에서도 이미 수용되고 있다. 이 법칙은 이사의 주의의무와 관련하여 발전하여 온 것으로서, 주의의무의 내용을 어떻게 파악하느냐에 따라 경영판단의 법칙이 적용될 수 있는 범위가 크게 달라진다.우리 경제는 이미 국력이 세계 9위에 해당할 정도로 성장하였다. 더 이상의 성장을 위해서는 시행되 고 있는 법에 대한 해석론도 발을 맞추어야 할 것이다. 기업의 이윤발전의 원천은 위험에 대한 인수에서 찾을 수 있고 이를 위해서는 위험선호적 의사결정이 피할 수 없는 선택인데도, 주의의무에 대한 논의는 20세기 초에 논하여지던 데서 더 나아가지 못하고 있다. 이러한 현상은 회사의 의사결정기관의 구성원인 이사들이 위험선호적 의사결정을 하였다가 실패로 돌아가는 경우에 예상되는 책임을 의식하고 위험기피적 결정을 취하게 된 필연적 결과이다. 이 논문은 위험선호적 의사결정이 회사의 성장에 있어서 피할 수 없는 선택임을 밝히고 경영판단의 법칙이 이 경우까지 포괄할 수 있는 길을 모색하기 위하여 작성되었다.

仲裁合意와 準據法

박찬주 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2009 외법논집 Vol.33 No.4

Major applicable laws on arbitration beside Arbitration Act are New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award (1959) and UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985). Korea signed the afore-mentioned Convention in 1973, and Arbitration Act revised in 1999 adapted the afore-mentioned Model Law. These factors have a great influence on application and interpretation of Korean Arbitration Law. The writer does not deny this influence principally, but has some doubts whether the legal principles unfolded by scholars and precedents are fully harmonized with the established or maintained interpretations about The Civil Process Act. The writer's major assertion possibly differing with majority scholars and precedents are as follows. ① The writer is affirmative in principle about the arbitrability of dispute encompassing public interest. ② Selective arbitration clause is valid in the light of freedom of contract, and permits the commencement of arbitral proceeding without further consent of the respondent. ③ The separability doctrine of arbitration agreement does not exclude the application of the doctrine of partial invalidation. ③ The arbitral tribunal can decide the dispute without recourse to the principles of law as amicable compounders ex aequo et bono if the parties expressly authorized it to do so.

위헌심판결정의 기속력

박찬주 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2010 외법논집 Vol.34 No.4

The main points the writer asserts in this essay are as following. First, the writer asserts that the binding force should not be restricted to confer to on decisions of unconstitutionality and decisions of unconformity to Constitution, i.e., the binding force should not be conferred to on decisions of constitutionality. This conclusion bases on two grounds: ① the negative approach formally advanced neglected the provisions of the Constitution §113(1) and the Constitutional Court Act §23(2) which require the increased majority in order to modify the previous construction of the Constitution and laws by the Court. ② the necessity of conferring binding force on the indispensable reasoning of decision of constitutionality. Secondly, the indispensable reasoning of a decision on constitutionality that gets binding force should be formed by the affirmative vote of six or more Justices parallel to the same vote to modify the previous construction of the Constitution and laws by the Constitutional Court. Thirdly, when the Court deliberates on the unconstitutionality of a law suspected as a revival law or similar law, the Court should deliberate first whether the law is within the binding force of the law previously adjudicated unconstitutional. Fourthly, the Court should not apply the newly enacted law merely because it is ameliorated without the order of the Court in the written sentence of decision pronouncing unconformity to Constitution. Otherwise, the law confer more powerful effect on the decision of unconformity than that of unconstitutionality.

판결확정 후 피해자의 사망 또는 가동능력의 향상에 일시금지급확정판결에 미치는 영향

박찬주 한국민사소송법학회 2012 민사소송 Vol.16 No.1

In this article, the writer gropes for the possibility of reclaiming the proportionate amount as unjust enrichment due to the death or advancement of impaired earning capacity of injured party after the final and conclusive judgment had been adjudged and executed. Several points the writer asserts in the groping process are as following. Firstly, the writer upholds the substantive law theory about the nature of res judicata. Secondly, if a final and conclusive judgment is adjudged on a money–claiming lawsuit, the grounds of demurrer against claims relate only to executive title regardless of the substantive legal relationships before raising that lawsuit or the substantively demurring grounds, and the remedies for unrighteous judgment must be discussed separately with the nature of demurrer against claims. Thirdly, the writer admits the existence of possible circumstances to raise lawsuits for recovery of damages or lawsuits for reclaiming unjust enrichment without revocation of the final and conclusive judgment through procedure for a retrial. But the writer does not opine the extent of those possible circumstances owing to the characteristics of this article. Majority opinions of scholars and the precedents permitting lawsuits for recovery of damages or reclaiming unjust enrichment assume the final and conclusive judgment unrighteous ones. But the writer asserts this assumption does not have considerable meaning in discussing the permission of reclaiming the proportionate amount as unjust enrichment due to the death or advancement of impaired earning capacity of injured party after the final and conclusive judgment had been adjudged and executed, as that judgment is not an unrighteous one when it was adjudged. Instead, the writer seeks the possible grounds from the jurisdiction of lawsuit of ownership transfer registration for recovery of true ownership and from the jurisdiction of lawsuit for reclaiming conspicuously increased rent–equivalent unjust enrichment owing to the skyrocketing economic circumstances.

二重賣買에 대한 새로운 理解

박찬주 대한변호사협회 2008 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.381

Generally effect of second sale of double sale is discussed centering around that of real property. Even though few scholars assert the second sale is always good under the principle of freedom of contract, almost all the scholars and precedents hold the second sale is null and void if the second sale contravenes good morals and other social order. According to the latter view, the first sale becomes impossible to perform if the owner transfer the title of property to the second purchaser unless if the second sale contravenes good morals and other social order. According to the latter view, the first sale becomes impossible to perform if the owner transfers the title of property to the second purchaser unless the second sale contravenes good morals and other social order. Double sale of a thing raises the following several difficult problems. The first is whether the sold property is restorable to the owner for the reason of unjust enrichment through null and void contract. A person who without any legal ground derives a benefit from the property of another and thereby causes loss to the latter should return such benefit to the latter(Civil Act §741). On the other hand, Civil Act §746 principally restricts the obligee’s right of return if the performance has been made for illegal cause and exceptionally grants the right if such illegal cause exists only on the part of the person enriched. Lots of scholars regard the concept of contravening good morals in Civil Act §103 in the same light with illegal cause in Civil Act §746. Then how can we explain the ground of the right of return based on Civil Act §103 despite the Civil Act §706? The more important problem ensued is even the subsequent purchaser in good faith should cancel the registration of his title under the principle of absolute null and void effect of juristic act. The writer argues the null and void effect of second sale should not be applied to the subsequent purchaser in good faith. The ground of this argument bases on the equalization of null and void effect contravening Civil Act §103 with the proviso of Civil Act §406 (1) which provides the comparative effect of obligor’s fraudulent act prejudicing obligee’s claim. Scholars who assert the characteristic of second sale as tort permit restitution, but their argument is not clear in respect of its means. For its implement, the writer suggests the subsequent purchaser’s direct claim of cancellation by the first purchaser. This article contains several argument. One of them is writer’s argument should be applied to the contributor’s sale of contributed property taking advantage of the unregistered state. 이중매매는 주로 부동산의 이중매매를 중심으로 하여 논의된다. 이중매매의 효력에 대하여는 계약자유의 원칙상 허용된다는 설이 존재하지 않는 것은 아니나, 이중매매가 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질 서에 반하는 경우에는 무효가 된다는 것이 통설․판례이다. 통설․판례에 의하면 제2매수인에게 소유 권을 이전한 경우에는 제1매수인에 대한 소유권이전등기의무는 履行不能 상태가 된다. 이중매매에 대 해서는 다음과 같은 어려운 문제를 제기한다. 첫째의 문제는 이중매매가 예외적으로 무효인 경우에 제 1매수인은 제2매수인 앞으로 경료된 소유권이전등기를 말소하고 매도인으로부터 자신 앞으로 소유권이 전등기를 경료받을 수 있는 것으로 보이지만, 제2매수인 앞으로 경료된 소유권이전등기가 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 반하는 행위라면 불법원인급여(제746조)에 해당될 가능성이 큰데, 어떠한 근거에 의해 반환청구가 허용되는 것인가 라는 점이 문제된다. 그러나 더욱 큰 문제는 이중매매가 무효인 경우에 무효인 법률행위의 절대적 무효의 원칙상 부동산이 전전매매가 이루어지고 전전매수인이 선의인 경우 에도 항상 말소되어야 하는가 라는 문제가 제기된다. 필자는 이중매매의 무효의 효력을 제한하여야 한 다는 입장에서 그 근거를 채권자취소의 상대적 효력을 규정하는 제406조 제1항 단서와의 균형에서 구 하였다. 한편 이중매매의 성질을 불법행위로 보는 설에서 원상회복을 주장하지만, 막상 원상회복이 어 떠한 방법으로 이루어져야 하는 것인가의 점에 대해서는 뚜렷하지 않다. 그리하여 필자는 제1매수인이 매도인으로부터 소유권이전등기를 경료받는 방법으로써 제2매수인으로부터 직접 소유권이전등기를 구 하는 것이 가능하지 않겠느냐의 문제를 제기하고 있다. 이 글에서는 위 문제 이외에 이중매매의 문제로 처리해야 할 특수한 경우 몇 가지를 살펴보고 있다.

이행의 소에서의 당사자적격

박찬주 한국민사소송법학회 2010 민사소송 Vol.14 No.2

The writer clarifies in this essay that, against the opinion of majority scholars and the Supreme Courts relating to standing to sue that the standing of a plaintiff is deemed to be satisfied ‘only by asserting’ he or she has a right of claiming performance and that of a defendant to be satisfied ‘only by asserting’ he or she bears the burden of performance, (1) the standing of a plaintiff is satisfied only when the written plaintiff asserts ‘plainly’ in the written complaint that the lawsuit of claiming performance is instituted by him or her in the capacity of powerful possessor of administration and disposition according to a substantive law or laws, or is instituted by him or her in the capacity of rightfully conferred the power of instigating the lawsuit though he or she has not the power of administration and disposition according to substantive law or laws, and (2) the standing of a defendant is satisfied only when the written plaintiff asserts ‘plainly’ in the written complaint that the written defendant bears the burden of performance according to a substantive law or laws, or as bearing the burden of performing the lawsuit. For this clarification, the writer examined thoroughly the rule of indispensable matters to be entered in the written complaint, the relation between standing to sue and fixation of parties, relation between standing to sue and rectification of defendant. The assertions in this article are as follows: “The Civil Procedure Act provides the matters of parties or their legal representative as indispensable matters to be entered in the written complaint. The opinions of majority scholars and the Supreme Court consider requirements of the indispensable matters are satisfied only by the mere entry. But, as the court can not advance the procedure of a lawsuit, especially the procedure of service, without clarifying whether the lawsuit is instituted by the possessor of administration and disposition according to substantive law or laws, or instituted against the bearer with burden of performance according to a substantive law or laws, or is instituted by the legal representative, the mere existence of entries can not be treated suffice. So the court can order to rectify for satisfying the required level as indispensable matters. But the court cannot dismiss the written complaint though the plaintiff does not rectify, for standing to sue is a matter of procedural requirement. According to the opinion of majority scholars and the Supreme Court, the problem of merging of standing to sue into standing to adjudicate is inevitable, such problem does not arise according to the writer’s opinion. 필자는 이 글을 통해 이행소송에서의 당사자적격과 관련하여 원고적격은단순히 자신에게 이행청구권이 있음을 『주장하는』 것만으로 충족되고 피고적격은 원고에 의해 이행의무를 부담한다고 『주장된』 되는 것으로 충족된다는통설·판례에 대하여, 이행소송에서 당사자적격이 인정되기 위해서는 소장을통해 실체법상의 권리 또는 법률관계에 대한 관리처분권자로서 제기한 소송에 해당하거나 그러한 관리처분권자를 상대로 하는 소송이라는 것이 명백하거나 그러한 관리처분권을 가지지 아니한 제3자가 소를 제기한 경우에는 그제3자에게 소송수행권이 있다는 점이 명백한 경우로 한정하는 것이 타당하다는 점을 논중하고자 하였다 . 그리고 이를 위해 소장에서의 필수적 기재사항,당사자적격과 당사자확정의 관계, 당사자적격과 피고경정과의 관계, 당사자적격의 흠을 이유로 하는 소각하판결과 민사소송상의 신의칙위반을 이유로 하는 소각하판결의 관계 등을 살펴보았다. 그리고 다음과 같이 주장하고 있다. 민사소송법에서는 당사자 및 법정대리인에 대한 기재를 필수적 기재사항으로 보고 있다. 통설과 판례는 형식적으로 그에 대한 기재가 있으면 필수적 기재사항으로서의 요건을 충족하는 것으로 보고 있다. 그러나 제기된 소가 실체법상의 권리 또는 법률관계에 대한 관리처분권자로서 제기한 소송 또는 그러한 관리처분권자를 상대로 하는 소송인가, 그러한 관리처분권을 가지지 아니한 제3자가 적법한 소송수행권을 가지고 소송담당자로서 제기한 소인가의 여부가 소장의 기재를 통해 명백하지 아니한 경우에는 소장송달 등의 절차를진행할 수 없고, 따라서 그에 대한 명백한 기재가 없으면 필수적 기재사항에흠이 있는 것으로 보아야 한다. 따라서 그 충족에 의문이 있는 경우에는 법원은 소장보정을 명할 수 있다. 그러나 보정에 응하지 아니하였다고 하더라도소장각하는 할 수 없다. 당사자적격은 본질적으로 소송요건에 해당하기 때문이다. 통설·판례에 의하는 한 필연적으로 본안적격의 당사자적격 흡수문제가 제기되지만, 필자의 정의에 의하면 그러한 문제는 제기될 여지가 없다. 필자의 주장은 지금까지의 통설·판례와는 전혀 다르므로, 많은 비판이 있으리라고 본다. 활발한 토론을 기대한다.