채권자평등의 원칙에 대한 재고

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.1

Korean Civil Execution Act, Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and obligee s right of revocation in 407 of Civil Act adopt the idea of equality of creditors. However, the idea of equality of creditors are empty in the process of practice. In the process of bankruptcy, there are several creditors who have priority such as a creditor who has a priority claim by the relevant act. However, the real problem is that the debtor’s ability to assume its executory contract to the creditor can be functioned as a hidden priority—a “secret lien”—confounding the bondholders’ expectations. The priority claim made by the financing after bankruptcy also has same problem. In this regard, the idea of equality of creditors became empty and have not been functioned properly anymore. In the obligee s right of revocation in 407 of Civil Act, the Act adopts the idea of equality of creditors. Whereas, the Supreme court decided that the creditor who get the right to execute can has a priority to be paid by implementing offset. The idea of equality of creditors in the obligee s right of revocation cannot be functioned. In this regards, the proposal which the priority rule should be adopted will be present based on the comparison between priority rule and equality rule. For this, the ideas of equality of creditors in the various Korean Acts and pro and cons between priority rule and equality rule are reviewed. Afterwards, the issues which are against to the idea of equality of creditors in the bankruptcy process and obligee s right of revocation are reviewed and the function of idea of equality of creditors will be reconsidered.

법학전문대학원에서의 법조윤리 교육의 실태와 개선방향

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2014 圓光法學 Vol.30 No.2

The method of selecting attorneys in Korea is changed from bar exam to Law school in 2009. Under the act on the establishment and management of professional Law schools, legal ethics is adopted as one of the required courses for the exam to be attorneys. Because there is no course that is legal ethics under bar exam system, reviewing the state and how performs the education of legal ethics in Law school is important at this stage which is after 5 years from starting the Law school system. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to look behind the education of legal ethics in Law school for 5 years and review the problems of the education of legal ethics. Afterwards the purpose of this paper is to provide the solution for the problems of legal ethics in Law school at this stage. In addition, Refering the study about education of legal ethics in Japan Las school which has been started 5 years ahead of us in 2004 such as how performs the education of legal ethics and which problems indicate is helpful. Therefore this paper compare the education of legal ethics in Korea Law school with Japan such as the state of education of legal ethics, which curriculum time is best, qualification of professor for legal ethics, range of education, teaching method and curriculum. Through these comparative and review, this paper point out problems of current education of legal ethics such as education level which enumerate the articles of Attorney At Law Act under the circumstances that the test type is only optional and the goal of education is preparing for the test of legal ethics by Ministry of Justice. After this pointing out, this paper provide the new teachig method such as performing the deepen learning by expressing students' own view through report and/or discussion and investing time for specific theme for deepen learning.

임차인 보호방안에 관한 연구

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2018 圓光法學 Vol.34 No.2

Korean Housing Lease Protecting Act and Korea Commercial Building Lease Protection Act are the Acts to protect the tenant in Korea. However, there are gaps which cannot protect the tenants in these Acts. Firstly, the Housing Lease Protect Act has only implied renewal. Whereas a lessor shall not refuse to renew without justifiable grounds within 5 years if a tenant requests for renewal of a contract in the Commercial Building Protection Act. Secondly, the Commercial Building Protection Act protects the tenant’s right to receive a premium from new tenant. However, the lessor can obstruct any tenant in receiving any premium pursuant to a premium contract from a new tenant after termination of the lease agreement under the literal meaning of 10-4(1). To protect the tenant’s right to remain under the present Act, the doctrines of common law can be referred when the court makes a decision. To be specific, when the lessor refuses to renew the lease agreement for house to increase the rent fee, it will be unreasonable by applying the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”. If the tenant of house who follows the terms and conditions of lease agreement wants to maintain the agreement and his or her claiming the occupancy is not unreasonable under circumstances of agreement, the lessor cannot evict the tenant without good cause by the “implied covenant of good cause for termination”. In the commercial building agreement, the court can interpret the tenant has right to claim the premium even after termination of agreement when the reasonableness can be recognized. For example, when the tenant had made substantial investment or the lessor has any responsibility for the tenant’s investment on getting or expanding premium, the tenant can receive the premium from new tenant who make a premium contract after agreement or lessor as a compensation for damage. Provided that the period the tenant can claim the premium from new tenant after termination should be limited within reasonable time. The reasonable time can be regulated by making or adding new Act or articles. 주택임대차보호법과 상가건물임대차보호법은 임차인을 보호하기 위한 목적으로 제정된 법률이나, 현행법 하에서도 임차인을 보호하기에 부족한 법적 공백이 존재한다. 먼저, 주택임대차보호법은 상가건물임대차보호법이 임차인에게 계약갱신요구권을 인정하고 있는 것과 달리 묵시적 갱신만을 인정하고 있다. 두 번째로, 상가건물임대차보호법은 제10조의 4조 제1항에서 임차인의 권리금 회수기회를 보호하고 있으나, 문리적 해석에 따르면 임대차가 종료한 이후에는 임차인의 권리금 회수기회를 방해 할 수 있다고 해석되어 임차인 보호에 관한 공백이 발생한다. 이러한 현행법상의 문제점을 해결하고 임차인을 보호하기 위하여 본 논문에서는 미국의 이론들과 판례들을 검토하고 동 이론 및 판례들이 우리나라 법원 판결에 서 임차인 보호의 해석을 위하여 적용 될 수 있는지 여부를 검토하고자 한다. 구체적으로는 주택 임대인이 “신의성실의 원칙” 또는 “계약해제 시 정당한 사유”라는 요건이 인정되는 경우에만 계약갱신의 거절을 인정하는 미국의 사례를 우리나라 법원의 법 해석 시 참고 가능하다고 보았다. 상가건물임대차보호법에서는 “임대인의 동의 없는 임차인의 무단 전차계약”에 관한 미국판례의 입장변화를 살펴본 후 프랜차이즈 계약에서 계약일방이 임의로 계약을 해제하는 경우 신의성실에 원칙에 따라 계약해제의 효력이 부정되는 사안을 살펴보았다. 이를 통하여 임차인이 권리금계약을 체결하려고 노력하였으나 계약기간이 종료된 후에야 새 임차인과 임대인 간 계약이 체결된 경우 동 계약의 효력이 임차인에게 귀속되어 임차인이 권리금회수기회를 갖게 된다거나 임대인에게 권리금 발생에 책임이 있는 경우에는 계약기간이 종료된 후에도 임차인이 권리금을 손해배상 청구와 유사한 성격으로 임대인에게 청구할 수 있다는 해석이 타당하다고 보았다. 다만, 임차인이 임대차계약 종료 후 권리금을 청구할 수 있는 기간은 법으로 합리적인 기간을 정하여 제한하는 것이 바람직할 것이다.

가상화폐의 법적성격 및 거래소 이용자의 권리 구제방안

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 한국법학회 2020 법학연구 Vol.78 No.-

2020. 3. 24. 개정된 “특정 금융거래정보의 보고 및 이용 등에 관한 법률”은 가상자산의 정의규정을 신설하고 가상자산사업자에게 해킹사고 예방을 위해 정보보호 관리체계를 갖추도록 하는 등 이용자 보호를 위한 규정을 일부 도입하였으나 여전히 가상화폐의 법적 성격은 명확히 규정되고 있지 않으며 가상화폐가 불법 유출된 경우 가상자산사업자의 투자자에 대한 손해배상 의무나 구체적인 보호 의무에 관한 규정도 존재하지 않는다. 이와 같이 투자자를 보호하는 법 규정의 미비로 2017년 초부터 2019년 3월 사이 국내 가상자산거래소 해킹사고로 인한 피해가 1200억 원에 이르고 있음에도 손실 책임은 투자자가 고스란히 부담하고 있다는 문제점이 있으므로 가상화폐 투자자를 보호하는 제도마련이 필요한 상황이다. 그런데, 가상화폐투자자의 법적 보호방안에 관한 논의를 위하여는 가상화폐의 법적 성격을 정의하는 것이 전제가 되어야 한다. 가상화페의 법적성격에 관하여는 화폐로 구분하는 견해, 자산으로 구분하는 견해, 상품으로 구분하는 견해 등이 존재하나, 개인들이 거래소를 통해 상당한 액수의 가상화폐를 거래하고 개인이 가상화폐가 존재하는 지갑에 대하여 개인 키(Private Key)를 통하여 통제권을 가지고 개별적으로 관리, 지배할 수 있다는 점을 근거로 가상화폐의 법적성격은 상품으로 정의되어야 한다. 한편, 2018년 통계에 의하면 곧 파산할 위험이 높은 가상화폐까지 포함하면 2017년에 ICO된 가상화폐 중 30% 정도만 파산되지 않았다는 결과가 공개되었고, 거래소 중에서도 해킹이나 대표자의 횡령, 배임 등으로 파산절차에 이르게 되는 사례가 다수 발생하고 있다는 점에서 거래소 파산 시 투자자의 권리구제방안에 대한 논의가 필요하다. 이와 관련 본 논문은 가상화폐의 법적성질을 상품으로 정의하고 이용자와 거래소 간의 계약을 상법상 위탁매매로 해석함으로써 투자자인 가상화폐 보유자들이 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에 따라 환취권을 행사할 수 있다는 해결방안을 제시하였다. 이에 따르면 거래소의 파산으로 손해를 입은 거래소이용자의 경우 위탁자로서 파산재단으로부터 환취권을 행사하여 가상화폐의 인도청구를 함으로써 실효성 있는 권리구제를 받을 수 있을 것이다. The Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information was revised to define the virtual currency newly. The act included several articles to protect the investors such as the providing Certification of Personal Information Protection to prevent virtual currency from being hacked. However there is still no regulation to protect the investors when the virtual currency is hacked or the exchange companies are bankrupt in Korea. Even though the investor’s loss from being hacked is 120,000,000,000 KRW from beginning of the 2017 to March of 2019, the investors should bear the burden of loss since there are no regulations to protect the investors. Therefore, enacting a regulation to protect the investors of virtual currency is required. For this, it is required to define the legal character of virtual currency specifically first. There are several opinion to define the virtual currency such as definition as “currency”, “property”, and “commodities”. Among these opinions, the virtual currency should be defined as “commodities” since the investor controls or dominions over a virtual currency and possesses them by virtual wallet and private key. According to the statistics of 2018, the 70% of virtual currency which listed ICO in 2017 are bankrupt(including the virtual currency which has a risk to be bankrupt shortly). In this condition, assuring the safety of virtual currency has become a problem. To solve this problem, the revised acts to protect the investors in Japan are introduced shortly. Afterwards the Mt. Gox case is reviewed and pointed out the problem in it to show the solution for the invesrtor’s protection in the bankruptcy case under the current Korea acts. By defining the virtual currency as “commodities” and the agreement between investor and operator of exchange company as “commission agency”, the investor can claim the right to recover the property from the bankruptcy estate under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Law.