부동산의 이중양도와 원상회복

윤진수 한국민사법학회 1986 民事法學 Vol.6 No.-

土地 및 林野 査定의 法的 性格 - 原始取得論 批判 -

윤진수 서울대학교 법학연구소 2012 서울대학교 法學 Vol.53 No.1

During the Japanese occupation period, the Japanese colonial government carried out the task of the official assessment and the determination of ownership on the land and the forest land of the Korean peninsula in accordance with the "Land Assessment Ordinance" and the "Forest Land Assessment Ordinance". In relevant cases, the Supreme Court of Korea has understood the above ownership determination as a ground of original acquisition. Meanwhile, the "Special Act on the Reversion of Pro-Japanese Collaborators’ Property", enacted in 2005, prescribes that the property acquired between 1904 and 1945 by the pro-Japanese collaborator is presumed to be the reward for collaboration and that it should be reverted to the State unless the presumption is rebutted. Against this backdrop, whether or not the ownership determination, which has been understood as a ground of original acquisition, should also be presumed to be the reward for collaboration has become a significant issue. This article argues that the ownership determination should not be understood as a ground of the initial creation of ownership, but rather as an administrative confirmation merely ascertaining ownership already in existence. Viewing it as an endowment of the initial ownership contradicts with the dominant stance of the recent historical research that the land ownership had already existed long before the above assessment and the determination process took place. The contrary viewpoint on which the current original acquisition theory rests is based on the colonial historical perspective that denies the pre-colonial property regime. Considering inappropriateness of this perspective, the theory of original acquisition needs to be abandoned. 종래 대법원의 판례는 일제 강점기에 토지 및 임야 사정을 받은 자는 그 토지나 임야를 원시취득한다고 판시하였고, 이러한 판례는 일반적으로는 별다른 의문 없이 받아들여져 왔다. 그런데 2005. 12. 29. 제정된 친일반민족행위자 재산의 국가 귀속에 관한 특별법이 친일반민족행위자가 1904년부터 1945년까지 취득한 재산은 친일재산으로 추정하는 규정을 두고, 그 추정이 깨어지지 않으면 그 재산이 국가에 귀속되도록 하자, 토지 및 임야 사정에 의한 소유권의 확정이 과연 친일재산으로 추정되는 재산 취득에 해당하는가가 중요한 쟁점으로 부각되게 되었다. 그러나 토지 및 임야 사정에 의한 “소유권의 확정”은 기존의 소유권을 재확인하는 확인적 행정행위의 성질을 가지는 것일 뿐, 소유권을 창설하는 효력을 가지는 것은 아니다. 뿐만 아니라 사정에 의하여 새로운 소유권이 창설된다고 보는 것은 사정 전에도 이미 토지소유권이 존재하고 있었다고 보는 역사학의 연구와도 배치된다. 사정 전에는 토지소유권이 존재하지 않았다고 주장하는 것은 식민사관의 유물일 뿐이다. 따라서 토지 및 임야의 사정은 종래의 소유권을 재확인하는 것이라고 보아야 하고, 사정을 받은 자가 소유권을 원시취득한다고 보는 것은 지양되어야 할 잘못된 이론이다.

유치권 및 저당권설정청구권에 관한 민법개정안

윤진수 한국민사법학회 2013 民事法學 Vol.63 No.1

The Korean Civil Code grants the possessory lien to certain types ofcreditors. According to the Code, the creditor has a right to remain inpossession of the property under the lien until the debtor has satisfied hisor her debt. The possessory lien on an immovable, however, has beencriticized for its adverse aspects. Critics’ arguments are twofold. To begin with, the possessory lien on animmovable is not registered in the register. Hence, other creditors such asregistered mortgagees have difficulty recognizing the existence of thepossessory lien. This is detrimental to certainty of transaction. Further, therequirement of the possession of an immovable by the possessory liencreditor leads to inefficient result, since no one is entitled to use theimmovable in an efficient manner once the possession is taken. Against this backdrop, the Civil Code Revision Committee of theDepartment of Justice has prepared the Korean Civil Code revision draft toaddress this issue. The outline of the draft is as follows. Firstly, the possessory lien on an immovable is no longer allowed exceptwhen an unregistered immovable is at issue. Even in this exceptional case,the creditor must demand the registration of mortgage within 6 monthsafter an immovable is registered. Once registered, the mortgage is deemedto have existed from the time when the debt is due. Secondly, the creditor who had made certain expenditure on anregistered immovable can demand the registration of the mortgage without the consent of the debtor or the owner of the immovable. This registeredmortgage has the same effect as other registered mortgages. This meansthat the mortgagee cannot assert his or her mortgage over other priormortgages. The above draft is now under its way to final legislation.

유류분 침해액의 산정방법

윤진수 서울대학교 법학연구소 2007 서울대학교 法學 Vol.48 No.3

공동소유에 관한 민법 개정안

윤진수 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.68 No.-

The Revision draft of co-ownership provisions of the Civil CodeJinsu YuneThe Korean Civil Code acknowledges three types of co-ownership;common ownership(공유), joint ownership(합유), collective ownership(총유). In case of common ownership, co-owners own separate and distinct sharesof the same property. If members of the partnership own the property ofthe partnership, they become joint owners. Joint owners have no distinctshares of the property. Collective ownership is established when membersof an association without legal personality own the same property. In February 2014, the Civil Code Revision Committee of the Departmentof Justice has prepared the revision draft of co-ownership provisions of theCivil Code. The main points are as following. 1. Common ownershipFirstly, according to the draft, one common owner can acquire thesubordinate real rights on the property commonly owed. At present, such anacquisition is not allowed, as an owner, including a common owner, cannotacquire the subordinate real rights of the property she herself owns. Secondly, the agreement among common owners regulating theadministration of the common property is effective againt the successor ofone common owners. The precedents have acknowledged it. The draftgives the precedents a statutory basis. Thirdly, The draft gives more discretion to the court in deciding thepartition of the common property. 2. Joint ownershipFirstly, the draft aims to resolve the contradiction between the jointownership rule and partnership contract rule. According to the presentCivil Code, all joint owners should consent to the disposition or alteration168 민사법학 제 68 호(2014.9)of the joint property, although the majority rule may be adopted byagreement. In contrast, the execution of partnership affairs is governed bymajority rule as a default rule. So there is much debate about how toresolve this apparent contradiction. The draft changes the partnershipcontract rule by introducing the unanimousness rule in the execution ofpartnership affairs. However, adopting the majority rule by agreement ispossible. In this way, the contradiction can be avoided. Secondly, the rule regarding the attribution of partnership property is tobe changed. The present provision states simply that the property ofpartnership becomes the joint property of the partnership members. So itis unclear whether other forms of ownership can be allowed by theagreement of partnership members. The draft makes it clear that otherforms of ownership can be adopted by agreement. 3. Collective ownershipThere is much controversy whether an association without legalpersonality itself may own the property or only members of such anassociation my own the property. A proposal was raised to eliminate theprovisions regarding the collective ownership, on the premise that such anassociation may own the property. However, this proposal was notaccepted, as such a change blurs the distinction between the legal entityand the association without legal personality.

미성년 자녀를 둔 성전환자의 성별정정

윤진수 서울대학교 법학연구소 2020 서울대학교 法學 Vol.61 No.3

The plenary decision of the Korean Supreme Court on September 2, 2011 declared that a transgender who has a minor child cannot request the change of his/her sex designation on the family register. This paper deals with this decision critically. This decision reasoned that the change of sex designation of the transgender parent would cause the minor child mental chaos and shock. Furthermore, when the submission of the family relation certificate is necessary, the child should submit the certificate which has the appearance of same-sex marriage. The literature on this topic in Korea is divided. There is no jurisdiction which requires the absence of the minor child for the change of sex designation of transgender parent except Japan. However, against the Japanese law there is strong criticism. In my opinion, not allowing the change of sex designation to prevent the mental shock of the minor child is unpersuasive, as the mental shock, if any, would result from the physical change of the transgender parent, not from the change of sex designation on the family register. So it does not fulfill the suitability of means, which is a subprinciple of the proportionality principle required to limit the human right. The real motive of the decision may be the concern that the child will suffer by the disclosure of the fact that her parent is transgender to other people. However, this argument is problematic, as it presupposes the discrimination and prejudice against transgenders. Lastly, the disadvantage to the transgender parent brought by the denial of the change of sex designation is far greater than the disadvantage to the minor child by the change of sex designation of his/her parent. So the presence of the minor child should not be regarded as a huddle to change of sex designation. 대법원ﾠ2011. 9. 2.ﾠ자ﾠ2009스117ﾠ전원합의체 결정은, 성전환자에게 미성년자인 자녀가 있는 경우에는 성별정정을 허가할 수 없다고 하였다. 이 글에서는 이 결정이 과연 타당한 것인지를 살펴본다. 위 결정은 그 이유로 성전환자에게 미성년자인 자녀가 있음에도 성별정정을 허용한다면 미성년자인 자녀는 정신적 혼란과 충격에 노출될 수 있고, 성별정정을 허용하게 되면 가족관계증명서상 동성혼의 외관이 현출될 수밖에 없으며, 미성년자인 자녀는 가족관계증명서가 요구될 때마다 동성혼의 외관이 현출된 가족관계증명서를 제출할 수밖에 없다는 점을 들었다. 국내의 문헌상으로는 이 문제가 많이 논의되고 있지는 않으나, 이 결정에 찬성하는 견해와 반대하는 견해가 발표된 바 있다. 성전환자의 성별정정을 허가함에 있어서 미성년 자녀가 존재하지 않을 것을 요구하는 나라는 일본을 제외하고는 거의 찾기 어렵다. 일본의 판례는 자녀가 존재하지 않을 것을 요구하는 것이 위헌이 아니라고 보았으나, 이에 대하여는 비판이 많다. 생각건대 자녀들이 충격을 받는다고 하더라도 이는 성별정정 허가 자체에 의한 것이 아니고, 그 전의 부 또는 모의 변화에 의한 것이므로, 자녀의 심리적 충격을 막기 위하여 성별정정을 불허하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 이는 기본권 제한에 관한 비례의 원칙 가운데 방법의 적정성이 결여된 것이라고 할 수 있다. 또한 대상결정의 진의는 가족관계증명서의 기재에 의하여 부나 모가 성전환을 하였다는 사실이 다른 사람에게 알려짐으로써 자녀가 고통을 받을 것임을 우려하는 것으로 이해할 수 있으나, 이는 성전환자에 대한 사회적 차별과 편견을 기정사실로 하여, 미성년 자녀가 이에 노출되어서는 안 된다는 것으로서, 문제가 있는 논증이다. 그리고 미성년 자녀를 둔 성전환자의 성별정정을 불허하는 것이 성전환자에게 주는 불이익이 성별정정 허가에 의하여 미성년 자녀가 입는 불이익보다 훨씬 크므로, 미성년 자녀가 있다는 것만으로 성별정정을 불허하여서는 안 될 것이다.

재산법과 비교한 가족법의 특성 - 가족법의 이타성과 합리성

윤진수 한국민사법학회 2007 民事法學 Vol.36 No.-

The Characteristics of Family Law Compared with the Property LawJinsu YuneIn Korean family law textbooks, one can easily find such expressions that the relations in the family law are irational. But there is no basis f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t the relations in the family law are more irational than the relations in the property law in the wider sense. This asertion is derived from the belief that altruistic behaviour is irational by itself. Surely, the individuals in the family law setting behave altruisticaly very often. But altruism cannot not be equated with irationality. And Rationality covers both egoistic and altruistic behaviours. The a l t r u i s t i c b e h a v i o u r s i n t h e f a m i l y l a w s e t i n g c a n b e e x p l a i n ed i n t e r m s o f k i n

건물의 합동과 저당권의 운명(하) - 대법원 1993.11.10 자 93마 929 결정(법원공보 960호 158면) -

윤진수 한국사법행정학회 1994 사법행정 Vol.35 No.8

한국법상 「판례」의 의미 - 대법원 2021. 12. 23. 선고 2017다257746 전원합의체 판결에 비추어 본 주론(主論)과 방론(傍論)의 구별

윤진수 사법발전재단 2022 사법 Vol.1 No.62

대법원 2021. 12. 23. 선고 2017다257746 전원합의체 판결은, 보충송달도 교부송달과 마찬가지로 외국법원의 확정재판 등을 국내에서 승인·집행하기 위한 요건을 규정한 민사소송법 제217조 제1항 제2호의 ‘적법한 송달’에 해당한다고 하면서, 보충송달이 민사소송법 제217조 제1항 제2호에서 요구하는 통상의 송달방법에 의한 송달이 아니라고 본 대법원 1992. 7. 14. 선고 92다2585 판결, 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2008다65815 판결 등을 변경하였다. 그러나 김재형 대법관은, 기존 대법원판결은 사실관계에서 문제가 된 것도 아니고 쟁점도 아닌 부분에 관한 것이기 때문에, 이를 판례라고 볼 수 없다고 하여 판례 변경의 필요성을 부정하였다. 이 글은 이와 관련하여 주론(主論, ratio decidendi)과 방론(傍論, obiter dictum)의 구별에 관하여 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위하여 영미, 독일과 일본의 논의를 소개하고, 국내의 학설에 대하여도 언급한다. 결론적으로 판례의 판시가 결론에 이르는데 필수불가결한 부분이면 주론이고, 필수불가결한 것이 아니며, 그 부분을 제외하더라도 여전히 논리적이고 이해될 수 있다면 방론이라고 보아야 한다. 그리고 방론에 해당하는 경우에는 대법원 전원합의체에 의한 판례 변경의 절차를 거칠 필요는 없다. 방론도 판례 변경의 대상이 된다고 본다면, 방론을 전원합의체에서 변경하지 않은 채로 소부에서 방론과 다른 판시를 한다면 이는 재심사유가 있는 경우에 해당할 것이지만, 그렇게 된다면 법률상 예외적인 구제수단인 재심의 사유가 굉장히 확대되는 것이 되어, 불필요하게 사법자원을 낭비하는 결과를 가져온다. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da257746 declared that the supplementary service stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act also constitutes “the service by a lawful method” as referred to in Article 217(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which regulates the requirements to recognize and execute a foreign court’s final judgment in Korea. The Supreme Court overruled two prior decisions which were contradictory to the en banc decision. However, Justice Kim Jae-hyung dissented on the ground that prior decisions should not be regarded as “precedents”, so overruling these decisions was unnecessary, as the lawfulness of supplementary service was not relevant in those decisions. This paper intends to research the distinction between the ratio decidendi and obiter dictum in relation to the en banc decision. It reviews the debates in Common Law countries, Germany, and Japan, and examines the academic opinions in Korea. My opinion is that the reasoning of a decision is a ratio decidendi when it is indispensable to reach the result of the decision. If not, it is only an obiter dictum. In case of an obiter, the Supreme Court need not overrule the previous decisions by the en banc session. If any deviation from the obiter dictum should be done by the procedure of overruling the precedent, a decision that deviated from the obiter dictum by the small panel, not by the en banc session, will counstitute grounds for retrial. However, such logic would lead to inefficent use, if not waste, of judicial resource.

민법 중 법인, 물건 및 소멸시효, 취득시효에 관한 개정예비안

윤진수 한국민사법학회 2001 民事法學 Vol.19 No.-