契約責任의 再構成 : 獨逸 債權法 現代化를 중심으로

鄭鍾休(Jong-Hyu Jeong) 한국비교사법학회 2002 比較私法 Vol.9 No.2

日本民法典의 編纂

정종휴(Jeong, Jong-Hyu) 한국법사학회 2007 法史學硏究 Vol.36 No.-

한국의 법률 문화에서 ‘日帝殘滓 淸算’은 늘 現在形의 의미를 갖는다. 한국민법전이 제정된지 어언 50년, ‘일제잔재의 청산도 중요하지만, 일본민법전을 그 자처|로 바라보는 안목도 필요하고, 일본민법전의 이해는 일본민법의 극복과 한국민법의 보다 나은 이해에 도움이 되리라는 생각에서, 일본민법전의 편찬과정을 정리하면서 한국 민법전의 원형을 이해하기 위한 도움거리를 찾자는 것이 본고의 목적이다. 일본에서의 근대민법전의 편찬은 1870년부터 ‘治外法權’의 澈廢와 ‘關稅自主權’의 回復이라는 국가적 과제로 추진되었다. 일본인들이 여러 차례 시도하던 法典編纂은 결국 외국인 고문 보아소나드의 과제로 주어진다. 모범으로 삼은 프랑스민법전괴는 편벌과 내용에서 상당한 차이를 보이는 보아소나드 草案에 기한 民法典이 1890년에 공포되었으나 격렬한 法典論爭 끝에 그 시행이 연기되고 만다. 그 후 호즈미 노부시게(穗積陳重), 토미이 마사아키라(富井政章), 우메 켄지로(梅 謙次郞)가 기초하여 法典調査會에서의 심의를 거친 日本民法典이 1896년과 1898년 두 차례에 나누어 공포되었다. 일본민법전은 보아소나드 민법전의 ‘근본적인 수정’ 결과라지만, 양자간의 내용상의 관련에도 불구하고, 편별과 내용면에서 실질적으로 새로 제정된 민법이다. 일본 慣習法의 민법전 재산편에의 반영은 미미하다 家族法은 家父長制와 夫婦不平等을 기반으로 하였다. 프랑스민법과 독일민법이 각기 獨自性을 가지면서 로마법 이래 2천년이 넘는 법전통속에 성립했다는 데서 일본민법전의 대부분의 재산편 규정은 西歐法 傳統의 具體化이다. 필자는 논의의 시발점에서 편찬 공포에 이르기까지의 30년에 걸친 일본민법전 편찬 과정을 고찰하였다. 이어서 일본민법전은 체제와 내용면에서 보아소나드 민법전과 어떻게 다르며, 1958년에 제정된 韓國民法典과는 어떤 면에서 다른지를 간단히 정리하였다. The Japanese Civil Code was the meas of suppression in Korean Peninsula on property relationsand family relations which had taken place from 1912 to 1945. Its bad influence continues to remain. The Japanese Civil code was, in principle, applied to Korean law under some restrictions until the Korean Civil Code went into effect 15 years later after the liberation from Japan. Because of this, the Japanese Civil Code has indelibly made impressions on Korean Civil Code and Korean legal culture. Therefore, "the liquidation of Japanese Imperialism" in Korean legal culture always has a meaning of such "a present form". Now, almost 50 years since the establishment of Korean Civil Code, this article is written for the purpose of the following: while it is important to liquidate Japanese Imperialism, it will be required to look at the Japanese Civil Code itself we need to know the Japanese Civil Code in order to overcome it; and also we need to understand the Japanese Civil Code in order to help understand the Korean Civil Code better. The main points of this article are to arrange, in Korean, the codification process of the Japanese Civil Code, and, at the same time, find something helpful for understanding the origin of the Korean Civil Code. From 1870 in Japan, the codification of modem civil code was promoted as urgent and laborious national policies such as abolition of "extraterritoriality" and restoration of "Administrative Autonomy". Although some Japanese had tried to codify a civil code several times, it ended in delegating the invited foreign adviser Gustave E. Boissonade with the job of codification. A civil code based on Boissonade"s draft bill, which was modeled after the French Civil Code but was distinguished from parts classification and text of the French Civil Code, was promulgated. However, there was a harsh controversy on enforcement and postponement of the code ("Code Controversy-Hoten Ronso") which resulted in postponing its enforcement. In its vortex, while also referring to the German Civil Code draft bill and using the base of Boissonade Civil Code, Code Investigation Commission("Hotentyosakai"), including Nobushige Hozumi, Masaakira Tomii, and Kenjiro Ume, promulgated prior 3 parts of property law in 1896 and posterior 2 parts of family law in 1898 through drafting and discussion. This led to completion of the codification of Japanese civil code. Japanese Civil Code was justifiably the result of fundamental correction of the Boissonade civil code. However, in terms of parks classification and contents, it was substantially a newly established civil law. Of course, both of them have dose relationship in terms of next beyond the discrepancy of systems. Although investigations on custom also took place for codifying the Civil Code, it was scarcely reflected on property part. Family law was based on patriarchism and matrimonial inequality. In that France and Germany have established their civil laws sui generis in legal tradition over 2000 years since the Roman law, most parts of property law of Japanese Civil Code can be said to have put the tradition of western laws into concrete. Family law was different from western laws in many ways. However, since its main provisions are derived from western law, problems of contents such as patriarchism and matrimonial inequality should have soon been revised. Its drastic revision took place after the Second World War. This article investigated the codification process over the 30years from the outset of discussion for codifying Civil Code to the announcement of the codification in Japan. Subsequently, this article arranged in sum shows how different Japanese Civil Code is from the Boissonade Civil Code in terms of system and contents and also in which ways it is different from Korean Civil Code of 1958. I wish that from now on this article will be a basic work for in-depth analysis of the Japanese Civil Code from the viewpoint of Korean Civil Code.

契約責任法의 새로운 展開 - 유럽 契約法原則을 中心으로 -

정종휴(Jeong Jong-Hyu) 한국재산법학회 2005 재산법연구 Vol.22 No.1

(1) Era of New Codification The modern era is characterized by phenomenal social and economic changes, such as the advent of the Internet, ever-developing science and technology, increasing number of travelers crossing borders, abundant transactions of goods and services, new philosophies and ethical views, better and faster transportation, and more protection of creativity. Civil laws governing transactions, in particular, have undergone reorganization and integration at the global level. I'd like to refer to these phenomena as features defining "the Era of New Codification." (2) Advent of "Soft Law" and European Contract Law Principles One of the key features of the Era of New Codification is the so-called soft laws, or the legal principles or drafts that have no target countries to apply them to, which are published largely due to the efforts of legal experts in many countries. The emerging soft laws are distinctive particularly in the fields of contract law, of which recent examples include Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), and Avant-project. This paper aims at identifying new trends of the rules on breach of contract and contract remedies by examining the PECL, published in three steps from 1982 to 2001 by the Commission on European Contract Law. (3) Analysis of the PECL For a better understanding of the main context, the relations between the PECL and other soft laws like the CISG, PICC, and Avant-project are provided along with the formation process, construction, and drawbacks of the PECL. The PECL is analyzed in the following order: a. Non-performance oriented system b. Liability for negotiations c. Change in circumstances / assurance of performance d. Remedies e. Right to specific performance f. Right to damages g. Right to terminate contract h. Right to price reductions Based on this examination, implications for the revision or development of the Korean contract law are provided as follows: a. Abolition of so-called original impossibility b. Presumed validness of contract and duty to mutual cooperation c. Remedies approach d. Remedies - effect of non-performance e. Strengthening of pre-contract stage f. Endangerment of Contract (4) Implications of the PECL The PECL contains a large part of the common core of continental law and common law. Aside from the basic factors of a contract, wide variations of a similar regime or concept are shown in the PECL. This is similar to the fate of Roman law that, after having gone through revisions in schools in the Middle Ages, was adopted in each country, analyzed in academic fields, and taught in law classes. The PECL might be roughly called ius commune of European Contract Law in the 21st century. Scholars in each European country have drafted this soft law, considering all changes in transactional environment such as the development of science and changes of philosophies regarding national and international trade. In this light, the PECL shows us the possibility of and the need for one unified global contract law beyond the current European common law. Many Asian countries such as South Korea, China, and Japan have been under the influence of the two representative continental laws: French and German law. At a time when a unified Northeast Asian contract law is desperately needed, the PECL is regarded as a good benchmarking source for new ideas and foundations of a new common law.

韓國에서의 非法律行爲에 의한 不動産 取得

정종휴(Jeong, Jong-Hyu) 한국토지법학회 1995 土地法學 Vol.11 No.-

지역균형발전과 한국 로스쿨의 출범 : 일본 로스쿨의 현상을 소재로

정종휴(Jeong Jong-Hyu) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2004 법학연구 Vol.45 No.1

사법 : 불안(不安)의 항변권(抗辯權)의 현대적(現代的) 전개(展開)

정종휴 ( Jong Hyu Jeong ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.24 No.3

일본(日本) 민법(民法)(채권법(債權法)) 개정작업(改正作業)의 최근(最近) 동향(動向)

정종휴(Jong Hyu Jeong) 중앙법학회 2007 中央法學 Vol.9 No.2

日本民法의 現代化

鄭鍾休(Jeong Jong-Hyu) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학연구 Vol.48 No.1

(1) 世界의 法秋序는 現代化의 파도에 싸여 있다. 사회생활의 기본법으로서의 민법은 끝없이 현대화를 요구받고 있다. 이웃 나라 日本의 民法은 이러한 신법전편찬 시대의 民法 現代化에 좋은 예를 제공한다. "民法의 現代化”란 무엇일까? 그것은 "社會生活의 基本法으로서의 民法”이 사회적 변화에 따른 요구에 응하기 위한 자기 변화라 할 수 있다. (2) 본고는 19세기말 일본 민법전이 제정된 이후 민법전 자체와 기타 민법 규범들이 어떻게 현대화의 요구에 응해 왔는지를 비교적 최근의 변화에 중점을 두고 추적한 것이다. 일본 민법전은 제정 이래 2차대전후의 가족법에 관한 대개정 외에는 비교적 최근까지 이렇다 할 큰 개정을 경험하지 않았다. 그러나 1990년대에 들어 민사입법의 움직임은 매우 활발해져, 종래의 기본적인 사고방식의 전환을 촉구하는 다수의 법률이 제정되었다. (3) 본고는 일본에는 한국과 같이 판덱텐식 5편으로 된 민법전임에도 재산편과 가족편이 별개의 법률로 되어 있었다는 것, 그 중 가족편은 2차대전 후 새 헌법의 제정과 더불어 대폭 개정되면서 언어 표현적인 손질까지 마쳤다는 것, 그에 반해 재산편은 최근까지 갖가지 손질을 거쳤으면서도 언어 형식면에서는 19세기말 제정당시의 "카타카나문어체" 방식을 유지했다는 것, 1990년대에 들어와 더욱 활발해진 알기 쉬운 민법전에 대한 국민적 요구가 2004년 "現代語化法”으로 결실이 되었다는 것, 그것은 "현대어화”속의 "현대화”라기 보다는 "현대화”속의 "현대어화”라 해야 할 것이라는 것, 그 구체적인 모습을 언어 형식과 내용면에서 고찰하였다. (4) 2004년 일본민법 현대화법은 형식적인 면에서의 민법전에 대폭적인 변화를 가져왔다. 재산편과 가족편을 통합한 단일법전화, 편장 구성과 조문번호의 손질, 조문 제목의 신설, 법제기술상의 정리, 각종 정의규정의 신설, 풀이와 함께하는 법률용어 표기, 문어체에서 구어체로, 법률용어의 명확화와 평이화, 보충에 의한 의미의 명확화, 옛표현의 현대어화, 등이 그러하다. 이와 더불어 보증계약의 요식화를 포함하여, 조문내용이 실질적으로 바뀐 부분이 있다. (5) 2004년 일본민법 현대어화법에는 근본적으로는 다음과 같은 문제점이 있다. 첫째는, 일본민법전의 현대어화 과정을 살피는 한, 판덱텐 시스템의 기능적 분산에 대한 고민이 없었다. 둘째는 민법전의 현대화 자체를 궁극적으로 정당화하는 시각이 보이지 않았다. 셋째는, 현재 계약법을 중심으로 한 채권법, 나아가 민법전 전반의 개정작업이 진행중임을 감안하면, 2004년 민법전 현대어화법이 언어적인 면만의 현대화로 일관되지 못한 것에 대한 의구심은 더욱 커질 수밖에 없다. (1) The global law system is riding the tide called "mordernization." Even if we consider the law system by limiting it to the civil law or the general private law, we can find that such civil law as the basic law of social life is forced to continue the modernization in the face of the changes of cultural and techNoogical circumstances such as the IT development, the globalization in the economical conditions or the potential way of thinking, the dissemination of global criteria, the development of bio-genetic or medical techNoogy, the overall consumer protection, the respect of self-determination, and the requirement of diversification. Such change was beyond the bounds of conception in the "era of codification" which features the "Allgemeines Landrecht f?r die preussischen Staaten of 1794”, the French Civil Code of 1804, the Austrian Civil Code of 1812 and the German Civil Code of 1896. I interpret that the legislative history is now facing the "new era of codification." The Japanese Civil Code is showing a good example of modernization of civil law in the "new era of codification." Then what is the modernization of civil law? It can be defined as self-change for the civil law, as the basic law of social life, to make efforts to adjust itself to the social transition. (2) This article will examine the relatively recent trend of how the Japanese Civil Code and other civil regulations have reacted to the requirement of modernization since its codification in the late 19 century. Relatively speaking, until recently, since the codification, the Japanese Civil Code has not had overall revision other than in the field of family law after the Second World War. However, the Japanese society has remarkably changed, which has lead to many unexpected problems. Nonetheless, the Japanese Civil Code has not gone through great revisions because case laws have had the possibility to complement the Civil Code and some special civil regulations have been enacted in order to complement and modify the Civil Code. With some active efforts in the field of civil law in the 1990s, some regulations were established to encourage the transition of the basic way of thinking about the Civil Code. (3) This article looks into the specific aspects of the Japanese Civil Code from the perspective of language and contents. The Code consists of property part and family part respectively in spite that it consists of five parts following the "Pandekten" law system like the Korean Civil Code. The linguistic expression of the family part of the Japanese Civil Code was altered at its great revision with the establishment of the new Constitution after the second World War, whereas the property part has altered in various ways up to recently, bur it adheres to "the Katakana literary style" in the linguistic form whose style was formed in its first codification in the late 19 century, However, people’s requirement for the easily understood Civil Code ("Hiragana style”) in the 1990s bore fruit into "the Modernized Language Aa" in 2004. It should be understood as "linguistic modernization" in "modernization" rather than "modernization" in "linguistic modernization”. (4) The modernized Japanese Civil Code of 2004 has brought various changes to the pre-existing Code in the formal aspect: the unit codification combining the property part and the family part, the rearrangement of chapters and articles, the establishment of the heading of articles, the technical arrangement of legislation, the establishment of various definition provisions, the inscription of legal terms with explanation, the change of language from written style to spoken style, the clarification and simplification of legal terms, the clarification of meaning by the way of supplementation, and the modernization of old expressions and so on. With the changes, some provisions lead to substantial changes of the contents. For example, a guaranteed contract has turned into a formal contract and a f

日本의 法學敎育改革 : "法科大學院論議"의 現在 Current Discussions on the Law Scool

정종휴 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2002 法學論集 Vol.7 No.1

"인간의 존엄"과 "생명의 존중"

정종휴 가톨릭대학교 법학연구소 2003 법학연구 Vol.2 No.1