채권자취소권에 대한 민법 개정안 검토

정주흥 대한민사법학회 2017 민사법연구 Vol.25 No.-

사해행위취소소송의 가액배상 판결에 대한 타 채권자의 보호방안

정주흥(Jeong, Ju-Heung) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2016 法學論叢 Vol.23 No.3

대법원은 민법 제407조에서 문제되는 채권자평등주의와 관련하여, 원물반환의경우에는 채권자평등주의 원칙을 따르지만 가액배상의 경우에는 그에 반하는 입장을 취하고 있다. 가액배상이 쟁점 사안인 대상판결 역시 채권자평등주의에 정 면으로 반하는 결론에 이르고 있다. 가액배상에 있어서는 취소채권자 외에 다른채권자들의 보호가 필요한데, 그 방법으로는 타 채권자의 수익자에 대한 지급금지 가처분과, 타 채권자가 취소채권자와 수익자 사이에 계속 중인 사해행위취소 소송에 독립당사자로 참가하는 방안이 고려될 수 있다. 이 글에서는 대상판결에터 잡아 종래 제안된 입법안을 비교 . 검토하면서 타 채권자들을 보호할 수 있는 입론의 방향을 제시하고자 한다. About the creditor egalitarianism in the Civil Code Article 407, in case of returning the original, the Supreme Court sticks to the creditor egalitarianism as a principle. However, in case of the compensation of equivalent value, it is opposed to the creditor egalitarianism. This issue also, is opposed entirely to the creditor egalitarianism. There are many studies that the compensation of equivalent value is opposed to the creditor egalitarianism. And, in January 7, 2013, the Commission for the Civil Code Amendment proposed revised bill for 10 provisions of Civil Code and 1 Article of Civil Execution Act about the Creditor s right of revocation. If the above amendments are promulgated and implemented, the issues that contradict the creditor egalitarianism which is related with compensation of equivalent value including this matter can be solved. However, nobody does not know when the Civil Code amendments are implemented. Therefore, at the compensation of equivalent value the protection for other creditors are needed. And I studied how to protect the other creditors until the enforcement of Civil Code amendments. Especially, in this case, the Supreme Court totally violated creditor egalitarianism. Below are some methods that protect the other creditors, First, the injunction of prohibiting payment to a beneficiary of other creditor. Second, the other creditor attends to fraudulent act revocation litigation as a separated party between revocation creditor and beneficiary. Of course, just with an above injunction and registration as a separated party, it is not resolved the creditor egalitarianism to the compensation of equivalent value. However, including this issue and in case of the same issue with this, it can be regarded that the other creditor can receive the reparations of equivalent value by the principle of creditor egalitarianism to some degree. Therefore, based on this case, about the compensation of equivalent value, this paper would like to try to find the way to protect other parties.

상가권리금에 대한 손해배상의 범위에 관한 연구

정주흥 ( Jeong Ju-heung ) 아시아문화학술원 2017 인문사회 21 Vol.8 No.6

임차인의 권리금 회수기회 침해를 방지하고자 2015. 5. 29. 상가건물임대차보호법 제10조의 3 내지 8 조항이 신설되었으나, 임차인에게 인정되는 권리금의 범위에 대한 대법원의 판단이 없어 그 기준이 명확하지 않다. 위 조항이 신설된 이후 하급심 판례를 전제로 권리금과 관련한 손해배상의 범위를 정리하여 위 범위를 하루빨리 정립되도록 하는데 그 목적이 있다. 손해배상의 범위를 세 가지로 연구하였다. 첫 번째는 감정인이 권리금의 손해액으로 평가한 유형재산 일부에 대해, 법원은 위 유형재산 일부의 소유권이 임차인에게 있다는 이유로 손해배상액으로 산정하지 않았는데 위 판단이 타당한지 여부이다. 임대인의 방해 행위로 인해 임차인의 손해가 발생된 것이므로 유형재산은 손해배상액으로 산정되어야 할 것이다. 두 번째는 임대인이 임차인에게 지급해야 할 손해배상액을 50%로 제한한 사례가 있다. 하지만 손해배상액의 제한은 특별한 경우가 아니면 허용되어서는 안된다. 세 번째는 손해배상액의 이자를 소장부본 송달일 다음날부터 선고일까지 연 5%를 적용할 것인지 아니면 연 15%를 적용할 것인지이다. 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제2항이 적용되어 판결선고시까지 연 5%를 적용하는 것이 타당하다. In order to prevent the infringement of collecting the premium for lessee, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, Article 10-3 and 10-8 were newly established. However, the standard is not clear because the Supreme Court did not judge the amount of damages of the lessee for commercial building premium. Since the establishment of the above new provision, the purpose is focused on arrange the scope of the damages as early as possible, based on the judgment of the lower courts. Three areas of compensation for damage were studied. The first is whether the judgment is valid. Because of the reason that the lessee has the proprietary about part of above tangible property, the court did not estimate compensation. the damage of lessee is caused by the interference of lessor. Therefore, tangible property shall be calculated as compensation for damages. Second, there was a case in which the lessor proposes 50% of amount of compensation for damages to lessee, whether the above proposal is applicable. the reduction of damages shall not be allowed unless special circumstances exist. The third is whether the interest for the compensation for damages will be applied 5% annually from the date of lawsuit until the date of sentence, or 15% annually. it will be reasonable to apply 5% annually.

사해행위취소소송에서 독립당사자참가신청

정주흥 ( Jeong Ju Heung ) 대한민사법학회 2018 민사법연구 Vol.26 No.-

In principle, the Revocation Suits for Fraudulent Action is the claim for return the original, and the claim for compensation is the exception. At the claim for compensation, the application for the Independent Party has the benefit when Intervention filing a claim for compensation as the revocation suits for fraudulent action between “all creditors” at the same time or different time. In order for another creditor to participate as an independent party in the past revocation suits for fraudulent action, must have the requirement to participate in the claim or the requirement to participate in the deceptive act protection. The requirement to participate in the claim shall not be compatible with the claim to beneficiary(defendant) from the revolving creditor(plaintiff), and claim to beneficiary from the independent party(other creditor). About this, the precedent said if the beneficiary is required to compensate the amount, the amount shall not be refunded to the creditor in proportion to the amount of the creditor's credits, it should be returned within the amount of the beneficiary, and to return the full amount of the credits. Therefore, it is difficult to meet the requirement to participate in the claim because the claims of the revocation creditor and other creditors are compatible. The participation of the deceptive act protection system is a case where the intention is to harm an independent party by claiming the beneficiary of the revocation creditor, and there is a possibility that the rights or legal status of other creditors may be violated as a result of the lawsuit. Regarding this the precedent said if the beneficiary completes the recovery of the property or value due to the confirmed judgment, the claim of revocation suits for fraudulent action of the other creditor and the request for restitution of the original will not have the benefit of protection of rights within the overlapping scope, Once the creditor has returned the value of the creditor, the other creditor will be violated by law. In the judgment that valuation claims 2014다28114, “Even if a beneficiary returns a property or value to a creditor in accordance with a finalized ruling, it will result in an unfair consequence that the creditor will in fact be reimbursed in priority to another creditor”, The beneficiary acknowledges the return of equivalent value. Since the above case recognizes the beneficiary's return of the value of the beneficiary, there is a concern that the rights of the other creditors or the status of the law may be violated, so that the participation in the deceptive act protection system can be possible. About above opinions, if following the precedents the independent judgment 2012다47548, 47555, because the judge has rejected the application for participation of the independent party due to the participation of deceptive act protection of the cancellation creditor. Therefore, it may be doubtful whether this is an independent opinion, but it differs from the above-mentioned judgment and the participation of the independent party in compensation claim. The above judgment, First, it did not apply for the participation of independent parties between “all creditors”, Second, it not a claim for compensation, but a claim for return the original, Third, even if the application for participation of the independent party is dismissed, the revocation creditor may be protected because he can claim to above plaintiff for the compensation by revocation for fraudulent action. As a result, if another creditor submits an independent party's application for a claim against the beneficiary of the revocation creditor, and if the beneficiary completes the return to the revolving creditor, the legal status of the other creditor may be violated. Creditors can be provided with the requirements to participate in protection of fraudulent action. If the other creditor applies for the participation of the independent party in the past revocation suits for fraudulent action between the revocation creditor and the beneficiary, with allowing this and if the judgment said that within the range of 000 KRW and liability property, the beneficiary have to pay the 000 KRW each and amount of 5% per annum to revolving creditor and other creditors from the next day of the judgment to the date of payment. It is possible to solve the problems against the creditor equality based on the relative effect theory, creditors can receive the compensation equally, the costs and time of litigation between the parties can be saved, and the court can save labor and time unnecessarily entering the litigation and dividend process. In addition, the status of beneficiaries who are concerned about double payment is stable, it is possible to avoid the inconsistency of judgment according to the effect of excluding further litigation, and it can prevent another fraudulent action that is able to pay additional compensation to the creditor of one of the malicious intentions.

디지틀 신호처리기의 효율적 설계를 위한 고수준 논리 합성

김태헌,정주흥,안치득,Kim, Tae-Heon,Jeong, Ju-Heung,An, Chi-Duk 한국전자통신연구원 1992 전자통신동향분석 Vol.7 No.3

본 고에서는 디지틀 신호 처리기의 효율적 설계를 위해 필수적으로 요구되는 고수준 논리 합성 문제를 다룬다. Behavioral representation으로부터 structural representation으로의 변환은 복잡도의 문제로 인해 제한적으로 연구되어 온 분야로서 최근 VHDL의 표준화에 따라 많은 연구가 요구되고 있다. 본 고에서는 기존의 제안된 방법을 중심으로 VHDL과의 관계 그리고 앞으로의 전망 등에 대해 논한다.