사이버소유권에 관한 연구

정진명(Jin-Myung Chung) 한국비교사법학회 2005 比較私法 Vol.12 No.3

The thought regarded cyberspace as a regional place is overspread these days. According to this trend, it appears the legal system on the real space has been applied to cyberspace analogically. Trespass to chattels in America is the representative legal theory for this. This theory was a type of the law of tort which had been applied to the property of real estate. But an inviolability which had been for real estate has become to be applied to cyberspace, as the applying extension of cyberspace has been expanded, and the point on real estate itself constantly has been disappeared. This has produced the result that is regarded the website in cyberspace as the object of possession, which has been issued for giving the right of property in cyberspace. In this article, the changing process of American case and criticism on Trespass to chattels was considered. Redemption for the right of material and the possibility of applying for the law of illegal behavior, was considered on this basis. Finally, the arrangement for the concept of property in cyberspace as an alternative right which could be applied for cyberspace was tried.

블록체인 기반 스마트계약의 법률문제

정진명(Chung, Jin-Myung) 한국비교사법학회 2018 비교사법 Vol.25 No.3

인터넷은 인류에게 정보의 신속한 교환을 가능하게 했지만 정보에 대한 신뢰까지 보장해 주지는 못했다. 따라서 전자거래 당사자는 정보의 신뢰성을 확보하기 위하여 신뢰할 수 있는 제3자에게 거래의 중개역할을 맡기거나 또는 다양한 정보보안 기술을 이용하여 거래의 보안을 유지하고 상대방의 신원을 확인하여 왔다. 그러나 최근 개발된 블록체인 기술은 공개 암호화 기술을 이용하여 블록체인 상에서 일어나는 모든 거래정보에 대한 신뢰 가능한 확인수단을 제공한다. 그 결과 블록체인 기술을 기반으로 하여 계약 내용을 자동으로 실행하는 컴퓨터 프로그램이 개발되었는데 이것을 스마트계약이라고 한다. 스마트계약은 계약의 교섭과 이행이 프로그램 코드를 통해 자동으로 실행하는 컴퓨터 프로 그램이므로 전통적인 계약과 차이가 있다. 거래에 참여하고자 하는 자는 상대방이 제공하는 컴퓨터 프로그램에 특정 조건을 입력하면 계약이 자동으로 실행된다. 그 결과 스마트계약은 계약법뿐만 아니라 금융법, 소비자법, 전자거래법 등 다양한 법률분야에서 많은 문제를 제기 하고 있다. 특히 계약법적 측면에서는 스마트계약을 법적 의미의 계약으로 볼 수 있는지, 스마 트계약은 어떻게 성립하는지, 스마트계약은 어떤 법적 효력을 가지는지, 그리고 불이행의 경우에는 어떻게 처리되는지가 문제된다. 스마트계약은 이더리움 블록체인에서 처음 활용되어 커다란 반향을 일으키고 있는 것은 사실이다. 그러나 스마트계약은 아직 일상생활에 본격적으로 사용되고 있지 않으므로 정확한 정의를 내릴 수 없다. 다만 확실한 것은 블록체인 기술의 발전과 함께 스마트계약도 무한한 발전 가능성을 가지고 있으므로 초기단계 수준이지만 그가 가진 법적 쟁점을 검토할 필요가 있다. 따라서 이 연구에서는 스마트계약의 개념과 기술적 배경, 구조, 특성을 검토한 다음, 이를 토대로 스마트계약의 법적 성질, 스마트계약의 성립 및 효력 등 민사법적 법률문제를 탐구해 보았다. The Internet has enabled the rapid exchange of information to humans, but it has not been able to guarantee the trust of information. Therefore, in order to secure the trust in information, the electronic transaction party has assigned a trusted third party an intermediary role in the transaction or has maintained the security of the transaction and verified the other party s identity using various information security technologies. However, block chain technology recently developed provides a reliable means of verifying all transactions occurring on the block chain using public encryption techniques. As a result, a computer program that automatically executes the contract based on the block chain technology has been developed, which is called a smart contract. Smart contracts do not have the feature of traditional contracts because their contract negotiation and implementation is a computer protocol that is automatically executed through the program code. If anyone who wants to participate in the transaction enters the specific condition into the computer program provided by the counter party, the contract is executed automatically. As a result, smart contracts raise many problems not only in contract law but also in various legal fields such as financial law, consumer law, electronic transaction law. Especially, from the aspect of contract law, it is a matter of whether a smart contract can be regarded as a legal contract, how a smart contract is established, what kind of legal effect the smart contract has, and how it is handled in case of default. It is true that smart contracts are being used for the first time in the etherieum block chain and are generating huge repercussions. However, smart contracts can not be precisely defined since they are not yet in full use in everyday life. Although smart contracts are at the initial stage, it is necessary to examine the their legal issues because they have an infinite development potential with the development of the block chain technology. Therefore, this paper reviews the concept and technical background and structure of smart contracts, and then explores the legal nature of smart contracts, the establishment and effect of smart contracts, and civil legal issues.

전자문서의 서면성

정진명(Jin-Myung Chung) 한국재산법학회 2023 재산법연구 Vol.39 No.4

우리 사회는 종이문서 시대에서 전자문서 시대로 전환되는 과도기적 단계에 있다. 그리하여 전자문서법은 전자문서에 대하여 종이문서와 기능적 등가성을 인정하고 있다. 하지만 종이문서 대신에 전자문서로서 서면 요건을 충족할 수 있는지는 여전히 의문이다. 그 이유는 전자문서법상 전자문서는 열람가능성과 재현가능성을 개념표지로 규정하고 있지 않으며, 전자문서의 법적 효력도 “전자문서는 다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 전자적 형태로 되어 있다는 이유로 문서로서의 효력이 부인되지 않는다.”고 규정함으로써 다른 법률에서 전자문서의 효력을 부인하거나 배제할 수 있다는 전제하에 입법이 되었기 때문이다. 나아가 기존의 개별 법령에서 규정하고 있는 ‘서면’ 개념은 전자문서를 예상하여 제정된 것이 아니므로 명문의 규정이 없는 한 서면은 종이문서를 의미한다. 그리하여 전자문서법은 2020년 법률을 개정하여 전자문서의 서면 요건을 신설하였다. 대상결정은 조합원이 총회에서 의결권 행사를 전자적 결의방법으로 한 경우에 이를 도시정비법 및 이 사건 정관에 규정된 의결권 행사 방법인 ‘서면결의’로 볼 수 있는지가 쟁점인 사안이다. 특히 대상결정은 전자문서법이 전자문서의 서면 요건을 신설한 후 처음으로 그 요건을 다룬 것이다. 그러므로 전자문서의 서면성에 대한 종래의 판례 및 새로 신설된 전자문서법 제4조의2 해석과 관련하여 그 의미가 크다. 따라서 이 글에서는 대상결정의 법리를 비판적으로 검토하고, 해석론적 입장에서 그 문제점을 논증해 보았다. Our society is in a transitional stage of transition from the paper document age to the electronic document age. Therefore, the Electronic Documents Act recognizes the functional equivalence of electronic documents with paper documents. However, it is still questionable whether electronic documents can satisfy the written requirements instead of paper documents. The reason is that the definition of the concept of electronic documents under the Electronic Documents Act does not stipulate readability and reproducibility as concept marks, and the legal effect of electronic documents is also “Its validity as a document is not denied because of its form, except for special provisions in other laws.” As such, the Electronic Document Act was legislated on the premise that other laws could deny or exclude the effect of electronic documents. Furthermore, since the concept of ‘written’ prescribed in existing individual laws was not enacted in anticipation of electronic documents, written means paper documents unless explicitly stipulated. Therefore, the Electronic Documents Act established the written requirements for electronic documents through the law revision in 2020. As for the subject matter decision, the issue at issue is whether it can be regarded as a ‘written decision’, which is the method of exercising voting rights stipulated in the Urban Renewal Act and the Articles of Incorporation in this case, when union members exercise their voting rights electronically. In particular, the subject matter decision is the first to deal with the written requirements for electronic documents after the Electronic Documents Act newly established them. Therefore, its meaning is significant in relation to the interpretation of Article 4-2 of the newly established Electronic Documents Act and the previous precedents on the written requirements for electronic documents. Therefore, in this article, I would like to review the legal principle of object determination and demonstrate its problems.

플랫폼을 이용한 전자거래의 법률문제 : 플랫폼사업자의 책임을 중심으로

정진명(Chung Jin Myung) 한국비교사법학회 2017 비교사법 Vol.24 No.4

최근 플랫폼을 이용하여 통신판매나 전재상거 래를 중개하거나 알선하는 자의 역할과 책임이 주목받고 있다. 그 이유는 플랫폼이 판매자와 구매자간에 판매장소만 제공하는 판매중개자로서의 역할을 넘어 거래 전반에 관여하는 경우가 늘어나고 있기 때문이다. 그러나 플랫폼사업자는 플랫폼만 제공한다는 이유로 판매자와 구매자간의 거래와 관련하여 발생하는 손해에대해서는 책임을 지지 않는다. 플랫폼은 거래구조상 신규 진입이 용이하므로 자본이나 신용이 약한 판매자도 거래에 참여할 수 있으며, 또한 거래의 비대면성으로 얀하여 판매자가 거래에서 요구되는 거래규범이나법률의 준수를 소홀히 하기 쉽다. 반면 구매자얀 소비자는 거래의 상대방을 특정하기 어렵고, 상대방이 특정된다고 하더라도 그 상대방에게 거래상 발생한 손해에 대한 책임을 묻기 어렵다. 따라서 플랫폼사업자도 거래의 관여 정도에 따라 일정한 의무와 책임을 져야 한다는 주장이 제기되고 있다. 플랫폼거래는 일반 거래와 달리 다수의 당사자가 거래에 참여하는 특성을 가지고 있고, 이들 당사자는 플랫폼거래의 직접 당사자가 아니므로 계약당사자에게 부과되는 민사책임을 적용하기가 쉽지 않다. 여기서 ‘플랫폼’은 공유경제가 가지는 특성의 하나로서, 플랫폼사업자에대한 법적 책임은 ‘공공재의 관리자’ 엽장에서 논의되어야 할 필요가 있다 따라서 이 연구에서는플랫폼의 거래구조및 플랫폼사엽자의 법적 지위를검토한다음, 플랫폼사엽자의 민사법적 책임을 검토해 보았다. Recently, the roles and responsibilities of intermediaries or mediators in mail-order sales or e-commerce transactions have attracted attention. This is because the platform is increasingly involved in the overall transaction, rather than acting as a sales intermediary between sellers and buyers. However, the platform provider is not responsible for any damages arising out of or in connection with the transactions between the seller and the buyer because of the platform only. Because the platform is easy to enter the new structure through the transaction structure, sellers with weak capital or credit can participate in the transaction. Also, due to the non-face-to-face of the transaction, the seller is likely to neglect to comply with the transaction rules or laws required in the transaction. On the other hand, a consumer who is a purchaser is difficult to specify the other party of a transaction, and even if the other party is specified, it is difficult to ask the other party to take responsibility for the transactional damages. Therefore, it is argued that platform provider should assume certain duties and responsibilities according to the degree of involvement of transactions. Platform transactions, unlike general transactions, have the characteristic that many parties participate in transactions, and these parties are not direct parties of platform transactions, so it is not easy to apply civil liability to contract parties. Here, ‘platform’ is one of the characteristics of the shared economy, and legal liability to the platform provider needs to be discussed from the viewpoint of ‘manager of public goods’. Therefore, in this study, we examined the platform structure and the legal status of platform providers, and then examined the civil liability of platform providers.

계약해제의 효과

정진명(Chung, Jin-Myung) 한국재산법학회 2012 재산법연구 Vol.29 No.4

계약이 해제되면 각 당사자는 상대방에 대하여 계약이 존재하지 않았던 원상대로 회복할 의무를 부담한다. 이 경우 원상회복의무자는 어느 범위에서 비용에 대한 상환청구권을 가지는지의 여부가 문제된다. 그러나 우리 민법의 기초자는 해제의 효과로서 원상회복의무만 규정하였을 뿐 그 내용은 확정하지 않고 판례와 학설에 위임하고 있다. 원상회복의 경우 비용의 상환에 관하여는 몇 가지 의문이 생긴다. 첫째, 다수설 및 판례는 원상회복에 민법 제203조를 유추적용하고 있다. 그러나 원상회복의 경우에 민법 제203조를 유추적용하는 것이 타당한지의 여부 및 어느 범위에서 상환이 가능한지에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 둘째, 원상회복의 경우 채권자가 채무자에게 비용배상을 청구할 수 있는 독자적인 청구권 기초를 인정할 수 있는지의 여부에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 셋째, 원상회복의 경우에 계약체결비용, 계약실행비용, 그리고 목적물 반환비용 등을 비용으로 상환하여야 하는지의 여부가 문제된다. 이러한 비용은 매수인의 관점에서는 일실이익의 손해에 해당하므로 매수인이 반대급부의 이행과 함께 손해배상을 청구할 수 있는지에 대한 검토가 필요하다. 이하에서는 계약해제에 의한 원상회복의 경우 비용의 상환에 대하여 고찰하였다. 그러나 우리 민법상 비용은 다양한 의미로 사용되고 있으므로 먼저 비용의 개념 및 손해와의 관계를 구명한 다음, 비용상환 청구의 정당성 근거와 그 내용에 대하여 살펴보았다. With Rescission, each party burdens to restore to the original state that their contract did not exist. In this case, questions have arisen about what extent the person who has a duty to restore to the original state has the right to request the reimbursement of expenses. But legislators of Korean civil law regulates only the duty to restore to the original state as the effect of rescission but entrusts it to precedents and theories without concrete contents. In the case of restoration to the original state, some questions can be raised about reimbursement of expenses. First, a majority opinion and precedents have applied the civil law article 203 with the rule of restoration to the original state. But the reviews are required about whether application to the civil law 203 with the rule of restoration to the original state is right or not and what extent reimbursement of expenses can be. Second, the review is required about whether a creditor has the independent right of claim or not. Third, whether conclusion cost of a contract, execution cost of a contract, and reimbursement cost of objects should be reimbursed in the case of restoration to the original state or not has come into question. These expenses conform to lost earnings to a buyer, so the review whether a buyer can claim compensation with a benefit in return or not is required. Then, this paper examines the reimbursement of expenses in the case of restoration to the original state by rescission. But this paper deals with the concept of expenses and its relationship with loss because the word 'expense' is used in various meanings in Korean civil law.

사법상의 철회에 관한 연구

정진명(Chung Jin-Myung) 한국재산법학회 2009 재산법연구 Vol.26 No.1

Our civil law and private special law approve the various kinds of revocation in order that an intender gets out of the restriction of legal acts or the effects of legal acts already occurred can be solved. Legal articles name it cancellation or recession but the meaning of some regulations is revocation in its legal characteristics, and other regulations should be regarded as revocation. Like this, our civil law and private special law stipulate revocation in sporadic variety. So the concrete legal effects of the use of revocation can not be found and the function of revocation is partly different. Therefore, revocation stipulated in our civil law and private special law raises several questions. Firstly, revocation can be questioned whether it makes intended expression not occurred yet cancelled or the one already occurred cancelled. It has the important meaning in the conceptive definition of revocation, the legal effect by the use of revocation right, and differentiation it from other similar systems. Secondly, if an intender withdraws his or her intended expression, what object of revocation and what legal situation of its are questioned. The former is concerned with the one whether its object is already intended expression itself or legal effects of intended expression, which becomes the basis of judgement on legal characteristics and function of revocation. The latter is concerned with the one whether, in the case of approval of revocation right, intended expression or legal act is not come into existence, or the situation of legal act is valid or nullified though legal act is already effected, which has an important meaning in the use of revocation and its legal construction. Thirdly, our civil law and private special law have various regulations permitting or negating revocation, whose basis and standard are questioned. The application of revocation should be limited because there is tension between revocation and the principle that is "contract must be kept". But private special law of these days expands and applies the revocation system to protect consumers and, in this case, there is difficulty in the united grasp the basis of legal theory and revocation in civil law. This paper investigates the revelation feature of legal revocation and its characteristics, and tries to draw the legal concept of revocation through the comparison with the systems of other law. Especially, it examines the benefits of legal doctrine that the system of revocation has and the disposal of revocation that has a substantial meaning. Lastly, it examines the using requisite of revocation right being revealed in the various legal systems and its effects.

위험부담에 대한 입법론적 고찰

정진명(Chung, Jin-Myung) 한국재산법학회 2012 재산법연구 Vol.28 No.4

계약총칙상의 여러 제도는 양 당사자가 부담하는 의무가 서로 주관적 대가성을 가진다는 쌍무계약에 이론적 기초를 두고 있다. 그러나 계약당사자 사이의 권리의무관계를 급부의무와 반대급부의무라는 이원적 구조로 구분하고, 또한 이를 견련관계라는 논리로써 재결합된 한 쌍의 권리의무로 볼 것인지는 의문이다. 이 경우 위험부담을 당사자 일방의 급부청구권의 귀추가 대가적 견련관계 있는 반대급부청구권에 어떠한 영향을 미치는가의 논리로 설명하기에는 한계가 있다. 그리하여 최근에는 위험부담에 대하여 견련관계에의한 규율을 부정하고 계약당사자가 어떤 의무를 부담하고, 또한 어떤 위험을 분담하는지를 토대로 하여 규율하고자 한다. 이 경우 반대급부청구권은 계약해제에 의해서도 소멸될 수 있으므로 위험부담과 계약해제가 중첩되는 문제가 발생한다. 그리하여 일부 입법례들은 계약해제에 유책사유를 요구하지 않는 대신 위험부담제도를 폐지하고 해제제도로 일원화 하는 방향으로 나아가고 있다. 우리나라의 2009년 민법개정시안은 2004년 개정안과 달리 계약해제의 요건으로 유책사유를 요구하지 않고, 또한 해제요건을 채무불이행의 유형별로 규정하던 방식에서 벗어나 ‘채무불이행과 해제’라는 제목하에 통일적인 조항으로 구성하고 있다. 따라서 개정시안에 따르면 현행민법에서는 그 구분이 명백하였던 위험부담과 계약해제의 기능이 중첩되는 현상이 예견되고 있다. 이 연구에서는 위험부담제도에 대한 비교법적 고찰을 통하여 위험부담제도와 관련한 입법동향 및 그 이론적 근거를 살펴보고, 이를 바탕으로 위험부담제도를 개정할 필요가 있는지의 여부에 대하여 검토해 보았다. The issue of the risk of loss in a bilateral contract focuses on which part bears the risk of benefit in return. In relation to the risk of loss, the Korean Civil Code declares the principle of a debtor rule under its §537, which makes a debtor bear the risk of loss. Besides, the §538 of the Korean Civil Code also prescribes a creditor rule in an exceptional clause. Therefore, under the Korean Civil Code, a debtor must bear the risk of loss until he fulfills his whole debt. The amended bill of civil law of 2009 suggests that the non-fulfillment of debt and termination(§544-3) and the change of circumstance and rescission•termination (§544-4) that are not regulated in the current civil law. The former legalizes the generalized regulation that permits rescission and termination of contract in the inevitable case separated from rescission by non-fulfillment of debt. According to the amended bill of civil law of 2009, it prescribes that two systems are in confrontation with each other over extinction due to the impossibility of fulfillment. This paper investigates German civil law, French civil law and Japan civil law focused on current civil law and the amended bill of civil law of 2009, then suggests whether the risk of loss can be approved under the bill of amendment 2009 that implies the congruity of Korean theories and cases or not.

유엔통일매매법상 계약해제시 물품의 반환불능과 책임

정진명 ( Jin Myung Chung ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.4

Avoidance of the contract causes the legal responsibility to make restitution to the other party as legal effects for breach of contract of one or both parties. However, if the destruction or deterioration of the all goods or part of the goods that a buyer has to make restitution to a seller occurs, it causes the problem about whether the buyer loses the right to declare the contract avoided or has to pay only the costs not to be returned not losing the right to declare the contract avoided. For this, clause 1 of art 82 in CISG claims that the right to declare the contract avoided or the right to deliver substitute goods becomes extinct in principle if it is impossible for him or her to make restitution of the goods substantially in the condition in which he received them and clause 1 of art 82 in CISG regulates that the right to declare the contract avoided or the right to deliver substitute goods can not be lost unless a buyer is not to make restitution substantially in the condition in which he received them only according to his guilty. However, art 82 regulates only general rules, so various interpretative problems have been raised. It decides if goods are transformed fundamentally before the buyer avoids contract, but it does not regulate liabilities about transformation. It does not have the regulation for the parties to distribute the risk for the case that the goods received are in the impossibility of restitution either. Furthermore, it concerns only the right to declare the contract avoided by a buyer, so it remains in problems if it applies to the right to declare the contract avoided by a seller, and to the case of the impossibility of restitution after the right to declare the contract avoided. CISG shows the clearer and more objective figures than our civil law because it constructs the conditions for avoidance of the contract in uniformity, considering the specific situation of international sales. This kind of legislative method was admitted to the Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law, and had an influence on German Civil Law revised in 2001. CISG has been in effect in Korea since March, 1st in 2005, and has given a lot of implication to the work of Korean Civil Code reform since 2009. Therefore, this paper is going to investigate risk of loss of the goods and liability of restitution in the case of avoidance of the contract which is regulated in art 82.

배달앱서비스 이용자보호 방안

정진명(Chung, Jin-Myung),남재원(Nam, Jae-Won) 한국소비자원 2015 消費者問題硏究 Vol.46 No.2

전자문서 및 전자거래 기본법의 주요쟁점

정진명 ( Chung Jin-myung ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.4

In Korea, as the number of electronic transactions using information and communication technology increased, the necessity of eliminating the legal obstacles of electronic transactions and giving the same legal effect to electronic transactions as in the case of traditional commercial transactions was raised, and the “The Basic Act of Electronic Documents and Electronic Commerce” was enacted in 1999. Although this act applies to electronic transactions processed by electronic documents, in order to highlight the status of electronic documents in 2012 and to supplement the related systems, “The Basic Act of Electronic Documents and Electronic Commerce(hereinafter referred to as Electronic Document Act)” to change the name of the act. As a result, the scope of the electronic document act has expanded from electronic transactions to all electronic documents. In particular, in order to facilitate the use of electronic documents, the validity of electronic documents is stipulated as not being denied as a document unless otherwise specified in other laws. Nevertheless, in the public and private sectors, the use of electronic documents is poor due to the legal interpretation of the Article 4 of the Electronic Document Act and the social practices based on paper documents. The revised electronic document act in 2012 supplemented the related systems such as electronic documents in accordance with the changed digital environment and added the systems for activation of electronic documents. However, in the electronic document act, only a part of the supplementary and supplementary matters were reflected in the revision of the law, and discussions that were not reflected in the revision of the law were required to be reviewed in terms of the systemicity and uniformity of the law. Therefore, in this article, I will redefine the concept of electronic documents that have been discussed for the activation of electronic documents since 2012, examine ways to further refine the effects of electronic documents, I will try to find a legal system.