수탁자의 이익상반행위의 효력

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean Trust Code art.33 declares trustee’s duty of loyalty. The trustee’s duty to act with loyalty means that the trustee must act solely in the interests of beneficiaries. The trustee must not place himself in a position where his own interests might conflict with those of beneficiaries. The no conflict rule is the basic rule governing fiduciaries. The art.34 comprehensively prohibits trustee’s acts which may cause conflict of interests with beneficiaries, unless the acts were authorized by the terms of the trust, approved by the court, or consented by the beneficiaries. But the art.34 itself doesn’t provide the validity of the trustee’s acts in conflict of interests.
This article attempts to provide a reasonable way of construction based on a brief comparative overview and analysis of cases and opinions on the art.34 formed before the amendment : the validity of trustee’s acts in conflict of interests should be determined in accordance with the types which cause conflict of interests. Trustee’s acts including self dealing and transaction between trust funds which come under the art.34 (1) 1 to 4 are void, but those including indirect self dealing which the art.34 (1) 5 is applicable to are valid. In the latter case beneficiaries can make the trustee’s acts void subject to the art.75. This type based construction corresponds to the legislative purpose of the provision and can protect the trust funds as well as the transactions.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
• Ⅱ. 이익상반행위의 의의
• Ⅲ. 이익상반행위의 효력에 관한 종래의 논의
• Ⅳ. 제34조의 해석론
• Ⅴ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 광장신탁법연구회, "주석신탁법" 박영사 2013

2 최수정, "일본 신신탁법" 진원사 2007

3 권기범, "이사의 자기거래" 한국법학원 (119) : 170-199, 2010

4 이중기, "신탁법에 기초한 영미 충실의무법리의 계수와 발전: 회사법, 금융법의 충실의무를 중심으로" 법학연구소 12 (12): 29-82, 2011

5 이연갑, "신탁법상 신탁의 구조와 수익자 보호에 관한 비교법적 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2009

6 안성포, "신탁법상 수탁자의 충실의무에 관한 고찰 - 2009년 법무부 개정안을 중심으로 -" 한국상사판례학회 22 (22): 83-120, 2009

7 임채웅, "신탁법상 수탁자의 자조매각권 및 비용상환청구권에 관한 연구 (대상판결 : 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2006다62461 판결)" 법학연구소 10 (10): 375-394, 2009

8 법무부, "신탁법개정특별분과위원회 회의록Ⅰ"

9 법무부, "신탁법 해설" 2012

10 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2006

11 이중기, "신탁법" 삼우사 2007

12 최수정, "수익자취소권 재고" 법조협회 63 (63): 168-204, 2014

13 최기원, "상법학신론(상)" 박영사 2011

14 정찬형, "상법강의요론(제12판)" 박영사 2013

15 이철송, "상법강의(제13판)" 박영사 2012

16 곽윤직, "민법주해Ⅲ" 박영사 1992

17 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2014

18 이연갑, "공시원칙과 신탁법 개정안" 법학연구소 31 (31): 89-118, 2011

19 寺本振透編集, "解說 新信託法" 弘文堂 2007

20 能見善久, "現代信託法" 有斐關 2004

21 천경훈, "改正商法상 自己去來 제한 규정의 해석론에 관한 연구" 한국법학원 (131) : 48-93, 2012

22 法務省民事局參事官室, "信託法改正要綱試案補足說明"

23 米倉明, "信託法22條1項本文の解釋について" 信託協會 160 : 1989

24 四宮和夫, "信託法" 有斐關 1989

25 Bogert, "The Law of Trusts and Trustees" Thomson Reuters 2014

26 Penner, "The Law of Trusts" 2010

27 Hudson, "Equity and Trusts" Routledge-Cavendish 2010

28 Hayton, "Commentary and cases on the law of trusts and equitable remedies" Sweet &Maxwell 2001