표현대리에서의 본인귀책근거에 관한 연구 = A study on the reason of principal's responsibility in apparent agency

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Der Tatbestand im Sceinvertretung des §126 des KBGB bestand im allgemeinen aus der grundlichen Vollmacht und dem richtigen Grund. In dieser Arbeit wird der richtige Grund von diesen Bedingungen als des Schwerpunkt behandelt. Das Begriff des richtigen Grunds ist bei der Interpretation sehr umstritten, da er ein abstraktes Konzept darstellt. In dieser Arbeit wird zuerst kritisch bemerkt, daß der Schultz des Geschäftsherrn von der Überwiegenden Meinung sowie der Entscheidungen vernachlässigt wird. Anschießend daran werden die Bedeutung des richtigen Grunds, der Zeitraum der Gültigkeit und Verantwortung für den Beweis unter dem Aspekt betrachtet, daß der Schutz des Geschäftsherrn und des Partners in einer Harmonie stehen sollen. Vor allem wurden die bisherigen Entscheidungen im Bezug auf dem richtigen Grund analysiert und klassifiziert, so daß die daraus resultierenden Kriterien für die Beurteilung und dessen Probleme diskutiert werden.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Apparent agency system is significant in that the other party who transacted with the person called an agent is protected to maintain the reliance on the system and to enhance the security of transactions. Previously the great part of jurists and judicial precedents showed interpretations faithful to such significance, in particular in cases of apparent agency exceeding authority. In other words, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents interpret toward mitigation or expansion of criteria of recognition of 'the rights of agency' as the requisite for existence of apparent agency. As above-mentioned, the rights of agency and the action exceeding the authority of apparent agent should not be of the same sort, and the eligibility as the rights of agency is not negated even though the rights of agency is the rights of representation of an action of the public law.

The interpretation in which the eligibility of the rights of agency as an requirement of apparent agency exceeding authority is widely recognized can protect the profits of the other party but is insufficient to protect those of the principal. Therefore, the role of the protection of the principal cannot be expected from the requirement of the rights of agency, and it should be considered in another requirement of apparent agency exceeding authority, or ‘existence of the justified reason.'
On the existence of the justified reason, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents believe the agent had the rights of agency by the other party even on overstepping in question, and understand that the belief is identical with no-fault, or liability without fault. And existence of the justified reason is judged on the assumption of objective conditions seen from the other party in the transaction. Therefore, when existence of the justified reason is judged from subjective observations as in the cases of the great part of jurists and judicial precedents, the conditions of the principal that may not be judged subjectively including, for instance, the apparent agency bestowed of the rights of agency forged or stole the principal's seal or registration documents for embezzlement are difficult to consider in the judgment of justified reason. Although apparent agency is essentially agency without authority, the principal has to have the effects identical from agency with authority. Therefore, under apparent agency the principal cannot reject the performance requiring of the other party and should be burdened with responsibility of performance. Nevertheless, the great part of jurists and judicial precedents have discussed apparent agency just as a system for protecting the other party, not focusing on the protection of the principal's profit. Such tendency has been considerably criticized, and recently some jurists seek to the balance between dynamic and static profit by limiting the scope of recognition of the protection of the other party by self-responsibility or self-responsibility factors of the principal. As above-mentioned, when existence of the justified reason is understood as the liability without fault of the other party, it may be impossible to consider the conditions of the principal, or self-responsibility factors in the decision of existence of the justified reason. However, when existence of the justified reason and the liability without fault of the other party are regarded as separate requirements for each other, they can be considered in the decision of existence of the justified reason. In this context, the intervention of the static profit of the principal and the dynamic profit of the other party can be obtained from the existence of the justified reason with the function of general provisions.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 第1章 序 論 1
• 第1節 硏究의 目的 1
• 第2節 硏究의 範圍 및 方法 4
• 第2章 表見代理에 관한 一般的 考察 6
• 第1節 序說 6
• Ⅰ. 表見代理의 意義 6
• Ⅱ. 表見代理 規定의 沿革 7
• 第2節 表見代理의 本質 10
• Ⅰ. 學說의 紹介 10
• Ⅱ. 判例의 態度 13
• Ⅲ. 檢討 및 私見 16
• 第3節 成立要件 및 效果 23
• Ⅰ. 槪說 23
• Ⅱ. 民法 第125條의 表見代理 24
• Ⅲ. 民法 第126條의 表見代理 36
• Ⅳ. 民法 第129條의 表見代理 60
• Ⅴ. 表見代理의 效果 63
• 第5節 小 結 -表見代理 運用의 動向- 69
• Ⅰ. 成立要件의 擴張解釋 69
• Ⅱ. 本人의 利益 保護와 相對方 利益 保護의 不均衡 72
• 第3章 外國의 立法例 77
• 第1節 序 說 77
• 第2節 日本의 表見代理 79
• Ⅰ. 表見代理 規定의 沿革 79
• Ⅱ. 日本民法의 動向 82
• Ⅲ. 日本民法上 表見代理의 歸責根據 88
• 第3節 獨逸의 경우 102
• Ⅰ. 序 102
• Ⅱ. 獨逸 民法典制定 過程과 表見代理 規定의 沿革 104
• Ⅲ. 獨逸의 表見代理 107
• 第4節 結語 126
• 第4章 우리 民法에서 本人의 歸責根據 128
• 第1節 序 說 128
• 第2節 本人의 歸責根據에 관한 理論 130
• Ⅰ. 權利外觀責任說 130
• Ⅱ. 有權代理說(法律行爲責任說) 130
• Ⅲ. 理論의 檢討 132
• 第3節 民法 第125條·第129條의 歸責根據 137
• Ⅰ. 授權表示 137
• Ⅱ. 通知義務의 해태 140
• 第4節 民法 第126條의 歸責根據 142
• Ⅰ. 問題의 所在 142
• Ⅱ. 成立要件에 대한 再檢討 143
• Ⅲ. 歸責要素의 判斷에 대한 解釋論 147
• Ⅳ. 判例에서 나타난 歸責要素 152
• 第5節 結 語 167
• 第5章 結 論 169
• 참고문헌 172
• ABSTRACT 182