목적론적 관점에서 바라 본 미국 불법행위법 - 불법행위법 영역에서 바라 본 ‘정의란 무엇인가?’ -

가정준 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.68 No.-

American tort law has been quite different from that of Korea from theperspective of how to tort liability is imposed. In both countries, thecomponents of tort liability - the act by an injurer, the injury to a victim,and the causation between the act and the injury - are very close to eachother. The large number of victims are not compensated under the nameof tort liability even though it is clear for the existence for an actor and avictim. I believe that social policy and judicial review may play moreimportant roles than tort theory in determining whether the injurer istortiously liable to the victim or not. In Korea, these kinds of debates arehiding underneath the openness to public. On the other hand, in the U.S.,the number of legal scholars have own social and economic perspectives ontort liability. In particular, Coarse Theorem has played a central role tonewly understand tort liability since 1970s. In law and economics, it statesthat bargaining is mostly likely to lead to an efficient outcome regardlessof the initial allocation of property under the low transaction costs world. Ronald Coase claimed this from “The Problem of Social Cost". The concept of transaction costs has produced varied settings in thenormative prescriptions and the positive analyses. Since the concept oftransaction costs is not clear, it is not easy to understand how it works intort settings instead. I have tried to show how transactional costs haveeffects on tort liability and economic analysis from several diagrams. Inshort, it is likely that tort liability is based on economic efficiency. InKorea, legal academcis have paid little attention to understand tort liabilitybased on economic analysis because they believe that the tort liability issupposed allocated among parties. This notion may not be wrongful untilfacing modern tortious behaviors that the small number of injurers producethe diverged large number of victims. It is hard to define what justice is in tort settings because all of injurersare not liable to victims they caused. Legal or social barriers prevent allvictims from being fully compensated. Korean academics have focused onlegal barriers while American ones on economic barriers. I believe thatthere is no significant difference among two legal systems for who issupposed to be liable for injuries. In American academics, a new toolbased on economic analysis has been used in determining tort liability. This analysis makes Korean scholars feel constrained to do it. However, itis time to try to accept what justice is in tort law based on economicanalysis rather than traditional legal theory. I hope that this paper maycontribute to this movement.

영미법상 법인의 권리능력과 행위능력에 대한 고찰 -Ultra Vires Doctrine을 중심으로-

가정준 한국민사법학회 2010 民事法學 Vol.48 No.-

This article has focused on “ultra vires doctrine" in the common law to find out how Korean civil law has interpreted the article 34 of civil code based on this doctrine. Recently, the number of Korean legal scholars participates in the movement to review and amend the entire of Korean civil code. Personally, I support this movement and would like to encourage them to strongly move forward. In this mood, this article tries to show how the common law has developed this doctrine and how this doctrine plays a role in the article 34 of civil code for the possibility of its amendment. In England, “ultra vires doctrine" has also been interpreted based on a company’s capacity. In general, the validity of an act done by charitable and profit companies shall not be called into question on the ground of lack of capacity by reason of anything in the company’s constitution. However, this ground may be challenged if a person does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity, or a person gives full consideration in money or money’s worth in relation to the act in question and does not know (1) that the act is not permitted by the company’s constitution, or (2) that the act is beyond the powers of the directors. In the United States, every nonprofit and profit corporations have perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its affairs including, without limitation, power. First of all, the validity of an act done by a company shall not be called into question on the ground of lack of capacity by reason of anything in the company’s constitution. However, a corporation’s power to act may be challenged (1) in a proceeding by a shareholder against the corporation to enjoin the act, (2) in a proceeding by the corporation, directly, derivatively, or through a receiver, trustee, or other legal representative, against an incumbent or former director, officer, employee, or agent of the corporation, or (3) in a proceeding by the attorney general. In Korea, commercial law scholars have claimed that “ultra vires doctrine" should be abolished in the filed of corporation law. On the other hand, civil law scholars have been reluctant to express their own view to abolish this doctrine. Instead, they have provided new interpretation by narrowing “ultra vires doctrine". Since “ultra vires doctrine" is deemed not easily abolished in the field of civil law unlike in corporation law, the alternatives like different interpretation or amendment in different fields are necessary for “ultra vires doctrine". This article has explored “ultra vires doctrine" in England and U.S. in order to provide basic study for the alternatives.

‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’의 역할과 그 한계

가정준 사법발전재단 2018 사법 Vol.1 No.43

This paper focuses on ‘criminal liability’ and ‘civil liability’ based on their role and limitations. The underlying point is that the former should be established by centering on offenders and the latter established by considering the victims, in light of the increasing demand to effectively prevent acts that are legally and socially condemned. The fact that criminal liability has been dealt with more than civil liability in courtrooms implies that civil liability is not performing its intended function and role as expected. However, the fact that a suspended execution, rather than a prison sentence, is considered in the assessment of ‘criminal liability’ make it most likely that the scope of ‘criminal liability’ has unreasonably expanded and the social resources for criminal outcomes have been wasted. Recent discussions on the introduction of a ‘punitive damages’ system and ‘increase of solatium’ offer a glimpse as to the underlying problem related to civil liability, namely, not living up to social expectations in effectively preventing tortious acts. In that sense, one possible solution for enhancing the preventive impact of civil liability is to considerably increase the amount of damages that may be awarded to victims of tort. ‘형사책임’은 행위자를 중심으로 그 책임의 적정화가 ‘민사책임’은 피해자를 중심으로 그 책임을 확장시키는 방향으로 ‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’의 역할과 한계를 고찰하려고 하였다. 이는 ‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’의 유기적 관계를 고려하여 이들을 최적화시키면 예방적 측면에서 ‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’은 그 효율성이 극대화될 것임을 믿어 의심치 않는다. 하지만 현재 ‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’은 이에 대한 기대에 많이 못미치고 있다고 보인다. ‘형사책임’과 ‘민사책임’은 사회적으로 비난가능한 행위를 자신의 법체계에 따라 책임을 부가하는 체계이다. 현대 사회에서 이들에게 궁극적으로 요구하는 것은 비난가능한 행위가 제어될 수 있는 역할을 예방적 기능이라는 이름으로 담당해 달라는 것이다. 법원에서 ‘형사책임’을 ‘민사책임’ 보다 많이 다루었다는 것은 ‘형사책임’이 ‘민사책임’을 상당히 대신하거나 아니면 ‘민사책임’이 그 기능과 역할을 다하지 못하고 있다고 추론할 수 있다. 만약 ‘형사책임’이 ‘민사책임’을 상당 부분 대신하였더라도 ‘형사책임’에서 징역형보다 집행유예가 많았다는 사실은 실질적으로 ‘민사책임’을 대신하여 ‘형사책임’이 억제와 예방적 효과를 얼마나 발휘하였는지 의심을 갖게 된다. 최근 많이 논의되고 있는 ‘징벌적 손해배상’ 제도 도입과 ‘위자료 증액’ 등은 전통적인 ‘민사책임’이 불법행위에 대한 예방적 효과가 사회적 수요를 만족시키지 못하고 있음을 간접적으로 보여주고 있다. ‘형사책임’의 범위는 특별형법을 중심으로 최소화시키지만 ‘형사책임’은 무겁게 만들어야 한다. ‘민사책임’의 근본 문제는 범위가 아닌 크기라고 할 수 있다. ‘민사책임’의 예방적 효과까지 높이기 위해서는 손해배상의 액수가 위자료를 중심으로 상당히 높아지는 것이 필요하다.

‘제조물’ v. ‘금융상품’에 내재된 위험에 대한 합리적 통제를 위한 비교․검토

가정준 한국재산법학회 2015 재산법연구 Vol.32 No.2

상품을 거래한다는 것에는 상품에 대한 정보와 위험이 공정하게 배분된다는 것이 전제되지 않으면 상품의 거래는 불공정한 결과가 발생하게 될 것이다. 실제로 B2C거래에서 이러한 공정한 배분이 이루어지지 않기 때문에 이를 위한 여러 가지 입법적인 조치가 행해졌다. 상품이라는 개념에는 제조물을 중심으로 한 비금융상품 뿐만 아니라 금융상품도 포함되어야 하는데 최근 입법적인 조치는 이들을 분리하고 있다. 개인적으로 비금융상품과 관련한 여러 쟁점들은 다양한 논의를 거쳐 이를 해결하기 위한 방향의 입법이 많이 진행되었지만 금융상품, 특히 금융투자상품에 대한 이와 같은 논의는 상대적으로 ‘정보의비대칭성’을 해소하는 방법에 집중되어 있는 것으로 보인다. 비금융상품과 금융상품 거래에서 발생하는 정보와 위험에 대한 불공정한 분배와 이에 대한 해소 방법을 비금융상품의 시각에서 금융상품의 문제점을 조명해 보고자 한다. ‘비금융상품’을 거래한 소비자를 보호하는 여러 법적인 제도, 기구, 그리고 법률이 상대적으로 잘 갖추어져 있더라도 ‘정보의 비대칭성’을 완화하고 ‘위험에 대한 책임’을 재정립하여 부당한 거래와 부당하게 위험이 분배되어 있는 것을 합리적 수준으로 만드는 것이 쉽지 않아 계속해서 소비자 보호 운동과 소비자를 좀 더 적극적으로 보호하기 위한 여러논의들이 계속해서 진행되고 있다. ‘금융상품’을 거래한 금융소비자들은 ‘제조물’을 거래한 소비자들보다 훨씬 강도가 심한 ‘정보의 비대칭성’과 ‘위험에 대한 책임’의 문제가 발생하고 있다고 보는데 이를 해소하기 위한 법적 제도와 법률이 오히려 더 열악한 상태로 보인다. 즉, 금융소비자 보호와 관련한 중추적인 역할을 하고 있는 금융감독원을 통한 소비자 보호체제의 실효성이 전반적으로 미흡한 것으로 관련 전문가들 사이에서 인식되고 있다. ‘금융소비자’ 보호와 관련한 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 여러 방면에 대한 논의가 필요한데 이에 대한 해결책으로 ‘자본시장법’은 많이 부족해 보일 뿐만 아니라 이를 위한 기구의 설립도 좀 더 적극적으로 검토하지 않으면 ‘금융소비자’들은 ‘정보의 비대칭성’과‘불합리한 위험책임’으로 금융시장에서 열세적 지위에서 벗어나기 어려워 보인다. 이를위해 새로운 시각과 접근방법을 제조물 책임법을 통해 살펴보았다. The market is not always considered the best institution for efficient reallocation of resources because of several reasons. In particular, making contract for products in B2C has produced several fundamental problems. First, unbalanced bargaining power is another problem resulting in unilateral transactions. Second, the asymmetric information is a common problem resulting in unfair transactions. Third, liability for risk from products is not reasonably distributed between a business party and consumers. In order to solve these problems, special statutes have been passed. ‘Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions’ has played a remedial role for unilateral transaction from unbalance bargaining power. ‘Framework Act on Consumers’ requires business party to provide consumers with the information of products for the symmetric stage. Product Liability Act has helped to reasonably allocate the risk of products between manufacturers and victims from manufacture defects. Making contract for financial products, mostly about financial instruments, has the same problems like doing for products because of the feature of B2C transactions and the complexity of contracts. However, the response to problems from financial products is different from general products. ‘Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’for B2C transactions of financial products may be equivalent to ‘Framework Act on Consumers’. ‘Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’ has focused on the duty to inform and the strict compliance of process in making contract to protect consumers’ right and interests. The purpose of this Act is not designed for the protection of financial consumer but for the financial market. The Article 1 of this Act is “to contribute to the development of the national economy by facilitating financial innovation and fair competition in the capital market, protecting investors, fostering the development of the financial investment business, and heightening the fairness, reliability, and efficiency of the capital market“. No compared statute with ‘Product Liability Act’ has been provided for financial products. In fact, financial products has been designed and created based on internal and external risks although this kind of risk is totally different from the risk from products. Design defect of products is subject to negligent liability to manufacturers if a reasonable alternative and safer design is available. No mentioned for risk liability in financial products. I admit that financial products are totally different from general products in their features and how to make. However, this difference may not necessarily make any different from risk liability. The risk information in financial instrument is almost impossible to access from the point of view by financial consumers. Even it is relatively hard for the financial institutions dealing with financial instruments to access the risk information. It is the time to discuss how to distribute risk liability from financial instruments like from product liability. I would like to encourage academic scholars to review how to distribute the risk from product liability and compare with how to distribute the risk from financial instruments.

‘제조물’ v. ‘금융상품’에 내재된 위험에 대한 합리적 통제를 위한 비교․검토

가정준 한국재산법학회 2015 재산법연구 Vol.32 No.2

The market is not always considered the best institution for efficient reallocation of resources because of several reasons. In particular, making contract for products in B2C has produced several fundamental problems. First, unbalanced bargaining power is another problem resulting in unilateral transactions. Second, the asymmetric information is a common problem resulting in unfair transactions. Third, liability for risk from products is not reasonably distributed between a business party and consumers. In order to solve these problems, special statutes have been passed. ‘Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions’ has played a remedial role for unilateral transaction from unbalance bargaining power. ‘Framework Act on Consumers’ requires business party to provide consumers with the information of products for the symmetric stage. Product Liability Act has helped to reasonably allocate the risk of products between manufacturers and victims from manufacture defects. Making contract for financial products, mostly about financial instruments, has the same problems like doing for products because of the feature of B2C transactions and the complexity of contracts. However, the response to problems from financial products is different from general products. ‘Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’ for B2C transactions of financial products may be equivalent to ‘Framework Act on Consumers’. ‘Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act’ has focused on the duty to inform and the strict compliance of process in making contract to protect consumers’ right and interests. The purpose of this Act is not designed for the protection of financial consumer but for the financial market. The Article 1 of this Act is “to contribute to the development of the national economy by facilitating financial innovation and fair competition in the capital market, protecting investors, fostering the development of the financial investment business, and heightening the fairness, reliability, and efficiency of the capital market“. No compared statute with ‘Product Liability Act’ has been provided for financial products. In fact, financial products has been designed and created based on internal and external risks although this kind of risk is totally different from the risk from products. Design defect of products is subject to negligent liability to manufacturers if a reasonable alternative and safer design is available. No mentioned for risk liability in financial products. I admit that financial products are totally different from general products in their features and how to make. However, this difference may not necessarily make any different from risk liability. The risk information in financial instrument is almost impossible to access from the point of view by financial consumers. Even it is relatively hard for the financial institutions dealing with financial instruments to access the risk information. It is the time to discuss how to distribute risk liability from financial instruments like from product liability. I would like to encourage academic scholars to review how to distribute the risk from product liability and compare with how to distribute the risk from financial instruments. 상품을 거래한다는 것에는 상품에 대한 정보와 위험이 공정하게 배분된다는 것이 전제되지 않으면 상품의 거래는 불공정한 결과가 발생하게 될 것이다. 실제로 B2C거래에서 이러한 공정한 배분이 이루어지지 않기 때문에 이를 위한 여러 가지 입법적인 조치가 행해졌다. 상품이라는 개념에는 제조물을 중심으로 한 비금융상품 뿐만 아니라 금융상품도 포함되어야 하는데 최근 입법적인 조치는 이들을 분리하고 있다. 개인적으로 비금융상품과 관련한 여러 쟁점들은 다양한 논의를 거쳐 이를 해결하기 위한 방향의 입법이 많이 진행되었지만 금융상품, 특히 금융투자상품에 대한 이와 같은 논의는 상대적으로 ‘정보의 비대칭성’을 해소하는 방법에 집중되어 있는 것으로 보인다. 비금융상품과 금융상품 거래에서 발생하는 정보와 위험에 대한 불공정한 분배와 이에 대한 해소 방법을 비금융상품의 시각에서 금융상품의 문제점을 조명해 보고자 한다. ‘비금융상품’을 거래한 소비자를 보호하는 여러 법적인 제도, 기구, 그리고 법률이 상대적으로 잘 갖추어져 있더라도 ‘정보의 비대칭성’을 완화하고 ‘위험에 대한 책임’을 재정립하여 부당한 거래와 부당하게 위험이 분배되어 있는 것을 합리적 수준으로 만드는 것이 쉽지 않아 계속해서 소비자 보호 운동과 소비자를 좀 더 적극적으로 보호하기 위한 여러 논의들이 계속해서 진행되고 있다. ‘금융상품’을 거래한 금융소비자들은 ‘제조물’을 거래한 소비자들보다 훨씬 강도가 심한 ‘정보의 비대칭성’과 ‘위험에 대한 책임’의 문제가 발생하고 있다고 보는데 이를 해소하기 위한 법적 제도와 법률이 오히려 더 열악한 상태로 보인다. 즉, 금융소비자 보호와 관련한 중추적인 역할을 하고 있는 금융감독원을 통한 소비자 보호체제의 실효성이 전반적으로 미흡한 것으로 관련 전문가들 사이에서 인식되고 있다. ‘금융소비자’ 보호와 관련한 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 여러 방면에 대한 논의가 필요한데 이에 대한 해결책으로 ‘자본시장법’은 많이 부족해 보일 뿐만 아니라 이를 위한 기구의 설립도 좀 더 적극적으로 검토하지 않으면 ‘금융소비자’들은 ‘정보의 비대칭성’과 ‘불합리한 위험책임’으로 금융시장에서 열세적 지위에서 벗어나기 어려워 보인다. 이를 위해 새로운 시각과 접근방법을 제조물 책임법을 통해 살펴보았다.

소비자 보호에 대한 미국법의 시각

가정준 한국재산법학회 2007 한국재산법학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2007 No.2

채권자의 손해경감의무

가정준 국제거래법학회 2019 國際去來法硏究 Vol.28 No.2

Generally, if a default occurs after the contract is established, the creditor has the right to exercise various legal remedies. This right may be robust, depending on the debtor’s default, unless the debtor cannot be held liable. The claim for damages are a common remedy found in all legal systems. However, ‘the duty to mitigate by a creditor’ on the damages is not common under the continental legal system. The simple answer is for the absence of this rule in continental law countries that the common law is based on strict liability while the continental law is on negligent liability. In addition, in the stage performing the contract, the creditor and debtor is imposed to make a duty not to commit negligence. The negligence by each party is trade off each other called the name of ‘comparative negligence’ or of ‘contributory negligence’. After the non-performing the contract, it is questionable if the creditor is imposed to make reduce the damage as a duty. In general, a duty is created by the agreement or law. Since this kind of duty may not be based on either of agreement or law, it is hard to call this a duty rather than good faith or legal consideration. Furthermore, in continental law, this duty is reflected either directly or indirectly. It is not a legal rule that can be easily cleared without understanding of the other legal system. If ‘the duty to mitigate’ may be used or found in most countries, it is probably because it is based on rationality. The key to this work is the rational understanding of the differences and whether they can be reflected as common elements in order to find common rules of law. This overcoming must eventually be based on rational thinking and understanding. In the contract law of continental law countries, the obligation of the creditor to reduce damages is a hard-to-find legal rule, but its universality and rationality make it invisible. Except for in Korea and Japan, a contract law on the duty to mitigate damages by a creditor in individual Asian countries could be easily found, and simultaneously witnessed in the international model laws. 일반적으로 계약이 성립한 이후 채무불이행이 발생하면 채무자에게 채무불이행책임을 물을 수 없는 사유가 존재하지 않는 한 채권자는 채무자의 채무불이행의 내용에 따라 여러가지 법적 구제 수단을 행사할 권리가 갖는다. 비록 손해배상청구권이 모든 법체계에서 공통적으로 발견되는 구제수단이지만 채권자가 손해배상청구권을 행사함에 있어 일정한 의무가 부가된 ‘채권자의 손해경감의무(duty to mitigate)’는 대륙법과 영미법 상 계약법 체계에대한 이해 없이 쉽게 일컬을 수 있는 법원칙은 아니다. 이 원칙은 영미법에서 쉽게 발견되지만 대륙법에서는 명시적으로 발견하기 어렵다. 단순하게 그 이유는 찾아본다면 영미법은무과실책임을 대륙법은 과실책임을 중심으로 한 계약법 구조 때문이다. 하지만 대륙법에서도 이러한 원칙은 직⋅간접적으로 반영되어 있다. 이 원칙이 대부분의 나라에서 통용되거나 발견된다면 아마도 그 이유는 이 원칙이 합리성을 기반으로 하기 때문일 것이다. 공유할 수 있는 법원칙을 발견하기 위해서는 상이점에대한 합리적 이해와 그 상이점들을 공통된 요소로 반영시킬 수 있는 지 여부가 이러한 작업의 핵심일 것이다. 자국의 법원칙 또는 규정이 존재하지 않거나 상이한 것들을 공통 법원칙으로 수용하기 위해서는 자국의 법원칙 또는 규정과 상이한 점에 대한 구조와 배경 그리고 그것을 지탱하는 지적 체계에서 벗어나는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 극복은 결국 합리적사고와 이해력을 바탕으로 하여야 할 것이다. 대륙법 국가의 계약법에서 ‘채권자의 손해경감의무’는 명시적으로 찾기 어려운 법원칙이지만 그것이 지닌 보편성과 합리성으로 인해그 법원칙들이 보이지 않게 내재되어 있다. 한중일을 제외하고 개별 아시아 국가의 계약법에서 ‘채권자의 손해경감의무’를 오히려 쉽게 찾을 수 있었고 이들에 대한 보편적 근거를발견하기 위해 국제모델법들을 동시에 살펴보았다.

배임죄의 대상이 되는 ‘부동산 이중양도’에 대한 법경제학적 분석

가정준 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2019 외법논집 Vol.43 No.3

‘Double transfer of real estate’ is a very prohibited act in Korea. ‘Double transfer of real estate’ is an act prohibited by criminal and civil law because the seller, the owner of the real estate, transfers his or her ownership to the second buyer through the double sale contract. A seller engaging in ‘double transfer of real property’ may be not only liable for civil liability for breach of contract, but also be subject to criminal liability for felony punishment. This is the case of dealing with ‘default’ as ‘criminal offense’. The Supreme Court's verdict of May 17, 2017 explains in a minority opinion why 'double transfer of real estate' is not an 'anti-social act', and opposes to 'criminal liability'. This paper attempts to maintain a more objective view than the previous discussion by analyzing ‘double transfer of real estate’ from the conventional normative perspective and from the legal and economic perspective. In conclusion, the reason why our court asks for ‘criminal liability’ for ‘double transfer of real estate’ seems to be focused on the fact that the market does not transmit the damages of the first buyer. I agree with this, but the fact that the damages of the first buyer cannot be transmitted cannot be judged that ‘double transfer of real estate’ is inefficient in the distribution of goods. The market expects that if ‘double transfer of real estate’ is not the object of breach of trust, the first buyer in the real estate contract will make an effort to secure his own ‘performance’. Obviously, the buyer changes his/her penalties to better reflect the profits of the buyer, or pays only the down payment and the balance without any intermediate payment. If the criminal charge for breach of trust is no longer added to ‘double transfer of real estate’, the market will naturally evolve to produce Pareto improvements. In examining ‘double transfer of real estate’ from a legal and economic point of view, we confirmed the problems of real estate transactions and standard contracts in Korea. Moreover, considering the fact that the object of the transaction is a limited commodity, and the unevenhandedness of the bargaining power between the seller and the buyer, it can be identified through external considerations that ‘double transfer of real estate’ may be subject to criminal liability. Law and Economics is the study of which direction and decision is effective, compared to other directions and decisions, of judgment, policy, or legislative discussion on a particular issue. In the meantime, if the Korean Supreme Court and academia have analyzed and reviewed ‘double transfer of real estate’ from the point of view of dogma, this paper newly analyzed it from the perspective of law economics. Hopefully, this paper may provide a new perspective to contribute to a more substantial and enriching discussion on ‘the double transfer of real estate’. 매수인으로부터 중도금 수령 이후 제3자에게 소유권을 양도한 매도인의 ‘부동산 이중양도’는 배임죄라는 ‘형사책임’과 채무불이행이라는 ‘민사책임’의 대상이 된다. ‘부동산 이중양도’에 대해 ‘형사책임’과‘민사책임’을 묻는 것은 다음과 같은 두 가지 의미를 갖는다. 첫째, 계약책임인 ‘민사책임’은 경제학적으로 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 ‘반시장적 행위’임을 선언하고 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 규범화를 내용으로 하는‘형사책임’은 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 ‘반사회적 행위’임을 선언하고 있다는 것이다. 이 논문의 초점은 ‘부동산 이중양도’가 과연 ‘반시장적 행위’일 뿐만 아니라 ‘반사회적 행위’인지에 대한 의심에서 출발한다. 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결은 소수의견을 통해 ‘부동산 이중양도’는‘반사회적 행위’가 아니며 더불어 ‘형사책임’을 묻는 것을 반대하는 이유를 구체적으로 설명하고 있다. 본 논문은 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 기존의 규범적 시각에서 벗어나 법경제학적 시각으로 분석함으로써 기존의 논의보다 조금 객관적 시선을 유지하려고 하였다. 결론적으로 우리 법원이 ‘부동산 이중양도’에대해 ‘형사책임’을 묻는 이유는 시장에서 제1매수인의 손해를 전보해 주지 못하고 있다는 점에 초점이맞추어져 있는 것으로 보인다. 이에 대해 필자도 동의하지만 제1매수인의 손해가 전보되지 못한다고하여 ‘부동산 이중양도’가 바로 재화의 분배에 있어 비효율적이라고 판단할 수 없다는 점이 법경제학적 시각이다. 이와 관련한 배경과 이유를 설명함으로써 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 도그마적인 관점이 아닌 객관점인관점에서 분석한 내용을 통해 새로운 시각을 제공해 보려고 한다.

법학교육에서 Leading Case의 의미

가정준 한국민사법학회 2009 民事法學 Vol.44 No.-

Under new system for legal education so-called “Law School" in Korea, new methods for legal education are demanded. After, this article starts with methods for American legal education, it continues to examine how leading cases play a role for legal education. There are many ways how to teach students in law schools in the United States. “Socratic Method" also called “Case Method" is well known for American legal education. “Problem Method", “Lecturing", “Seminar", “Clinic Program", “Internship", “Externship" and “Lawyering Program" are others to educate law school students for their professional careers. Classes in the U.S. law school are roughly classified for legal principles and practices. “Case Method", “Problem Method", “Lecturing", and “Seminar" are intended to educate students for legal principles. "Clinic Program", “Internship", “Externship" and “Lawyering Program" are used to do for legal practices. All of these classes are designed to make that students think like a lawyer, act like a lawyer, and look like a lawyer. Especially, classes for legal principles aim that students become to think like a lawyer. Most of law materials and textbooks especially for “Case Method", “Problem Method", “Lecturing", and "Seminar"are based on cases rather than theoretical explanations. Cases in these law materials and textbooks are called “leading cases". “Leading cases" can be classified into two. One is based on common law while the other is on non-common law. It is likely that “leading cases" in common law means leading cases in traditional private law such as contracts, torts, and property. On the other hand, it is likely that “leading cases" in non-common law indicates “landmark cases" in public law such as constitution and criminal procedure. This classification is based on different jurisdiction. “Leading cases" are not simply case laws but tools to explain what each legal principle is in a certain context. Teaching and learning “leading cases" by "Case Method" or “Problem Method" intend to establish legal mind and to systematize legal principles for students.

계약은 얼마나 좌절될 수 있는가? - 사정변경의 원칙에 대한 새로운 패러다임 제시 -

가정준 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2024 외법논집 Vol.48 No.1

영미법에서 ‘계약목적의 좌절’은 책임없는 사유를 원인으로 한 이행불능 등의 위험 분배와 깊이 연관되어 발전했으며, 우리 민법에서는 신의성실 원칙을 기반으로 발전했다. 두 제도의 공통 요건은 계약 당사자의 귀책 사유 없이 계약체결 시 예상할 수 없었던 사건의 발생이다. 이러한 유사성에도 불구하고, 대륙법과 영미법이 서로 다른 관점에서 접근하는 이유는 계약체결 후 예기치 않은 사건으로 인해 계약을 해제/해지하는 것을 대륙법은 선호하지 않기 때문이다. 대륙법에서는 중대한 사정변경으로인해 계약 유지가 어려울 때 계약을 수정하여 유지하려는 경향이 있으며, 이는 ‘계약은 지켜져야 한다(pacta sunt servanda)’라는 원칙의 반영일 수 있다. 반면, 영미법에서는 사정변경을 이행불능과 같은위험 분배의 관점에서 바라보는데 그 이유는 사정변경의 원칙을 이행불능이라는 역사적 배경을 가지고 있기 때문이다. ‘사정변경의 원칙’을 영미법상 시각으로 바라보고 그 시각을 소개하는 이유는 법의원리에 대한 다양한 모습을 고찰하려고 하기 때문이다. 본 논문은 ‘사정변경의 원칙’에 대한 보다 근원적인 고찰을 통해 우리 민법에서 논의를 보다 다양하고 풍성하게 하려는 목적으로 한다. The doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law, which developed in closely connection with the distribution of risks such as impossibility of performance, contrasts with continental law’s principle of ‘change of circumstances’, which evolved based on the principle of good faith. The requirements for both the doctrine of ‘frustration of purpose’ in common law and the principle of ‘change of circumstances’ in continental law commonly include the occurrence of an event unforeseen by the contracting parties at the time of contract formation, without fault on their part. Despite their very similar content, the different starting points stem from the civil law’s reluctance to terminate a contract entirely due to unforeseen events occurring after its effective formation. In civil law, the tendency to maintain or modify the contract in situations where it becomes difficult to uphold due to significant changes in circumstances, rather than terminating it, can be seen as an unconscious adherence to the notion that ‘contracts must be honored’ or ‘pacta sunt servanda’. The perspective in common law that views the principle of change of circumstances similar to faultless impossibility of performance is largely historical. These differing perspectives on the same phenomenon demonstrate the diverse interpretations and development of legal principles. Through this, the purpose of this paper is to provide an opportunity to newly view the principle of change of circumstances from a broader perspective.