中國의 外資關係法과 內國民待遇

全淳信 법무부 2006 통상법률 Vol.- No.67

Since the end of 1978, China has transformed its economic and political structures by adopting an 'Open Door Policy', promoting international trade and welcoming foreign investment in China. In 1998, China's exports were US $ 183,8 billion and US $ 240 billion of foreign capital has been already invested in China. In 2004, China was third in international trade with a total volume of US $ 1.1 trillion and foreign direct investment (hereinafter 'FDI') in China nearly mounted to US $ 60 billion. Thus, much of this growth in trade can be attributed to FDI. However, the Chinese FDI legal system is far from well-established. There are, of course, many factors which are slowing legal development in China. For example, an influence of a planned socialist economy, a lack of concern for long-running policies and practice, corruption and lack of transparency and others. Long-term investors are concerned about the standards of investment treatment offered by China. There are three broad categories of treatment standards in foreign investment law: national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment and fair and equitable treatment. China has not hesitated to confer most-favored-nation treatment and fair and equitable treatment, but has been reluctant to promise national treatment to foreign investment. Foreign investors has desired national treatment as one of the most important safeguards for an equal competition market in host country. Applicable scopes of and reservations to national treatment in the FDI legal system, naturally, vary from country to country. This thesis focuses on the national treatment in the Chinese FDI legal system. Part Ⅱ reviews national treatment in international law. Part Ⅲ examines bilateral investment treaties and the TRIMs agreement. Part Ⅳ studies the status quo of national treatment in Chinese FDI law and particularly analyzes the change in the Chinese legal system, and the feasibility of adopting national treatment in Chinese FDI regimes. In conclusion, it takes a long time to adopt national treatment, but it's time for China to start. The development of the economy and the legal system in China has provided a better situation for China to adopt national treatment. Recently China abolished some obstacles which were inconsistent with WTO TRIMs agreement, to become a member of the WTO. But China has to adopt a more comprehensive national treatment to create a more favorable legal system to foreign direct investment.

국제투자규범의 국민대우조항 고찰

김여선(Kim, Yeusun) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2020 法學論文集 Vol.44 No.2

In the International Economic Law, national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment are the main principles of non-discrimination. In the International Investment Agreement(IAA), national treatment provisions are stipulated without exception. Among the mandatory provisions of the IIA, the most widely prescribed form of provision is the National Treatment clause. In the early stages of the IIA, the national treatment clause was briefly defined, but as it has been defined differently as it went through different eras. At the beginning of the IIA, national treatment was defined in one article, such as most favored nation and Fair & Equitable Treatment. This was all based on the principle of the Non-Discrimination principle. However, in recent years, the IIA has evolved to alone type national treatment clause in which IIA defines the content of national treatment independently. The term of the national treatment clearly defines the object of application as “establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.” National treatment provisions that include “established” and “acquired” are pre-entry protected national treatment provisions. As the substantive requirements of national treatment, three substantive requirements were established: ① comparison of “the homogenious situation” between investors and investors in host countries ② existence of discriminatory treatment ③ legitimacy of the purpose of discrimination treatment. And in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arbitration jedgement, this requirement is strictly followed and there has been no disagreement. What has been recently discussed in homogeneous situations is the “legal requirements” of like circumstance between the objects of comparisons. In other words, it was established as the main requirement that the same legal system should be applied to peers in like circumstance. In the ISDS arbitration judgement, the citation of WTO/GATT s national treatment law has been denied. However, it is positive about the application of general exception clauses for common good such as public health and environmental protection just like the Article 20 of the GATT. That is because the IIA does not have the same grounds as the general exception. Looking at the precedents of ISDS arbitration, arbitration applicants often claim violations of the F&ET provisions at the same time as violations of national treatment. This is because the law of discrimination overlaps. In fact, national treatment is interpreted very flexibly in terms of the economic sovereignty of the host country, so there are few precedents judged as violations. On the contrary, various discrimination problems arising from the policy implementation process constitute F&ET violations. What matters in relation to the National Treaty is the fact that there are cases of de facto or disguised discrimination although it looks indiscriminate superficially in the policy enforcement of the host country. The restriction on foreign investment due to national security reasons is an example. Since this is limited to domestic law, in theory, it is more likely to be treated as a violation of national treatment. In addition, in ISDS arbitration is negative about the citation of the WTO law. However, there is no governing law in the case of a claim for violation of national treatment in areas such as intellectual property rights. In some cases, ISDS arbitration and WTO Dispute Settlement System were conducted simultaneously. Therefore, the contention between ISDS and WTO/DSB is a remaining issue. 국제경제규범에서 국민대우와 최혜국대우는 대표적인 무차별원칙이다. 국제투자규범에서도 예외없이 국민대우조항이 규정되어 있고 IIA의무조항 중에서 가장 다양한 내용의 조문 형태이다. IIA체결 초기에 국민대우조항은 간단하게 규정하였지만, 시대별로 많은 변화가 있었다. 국제투자규범 형성 초기에는 국민대우를 최혜국대우와 ‘공정하고 공평한 대우’와 같이 하나의 조문에서 규정하였다. 이것은 모두 무차별원칙의 법리를 기반으로 하기 때문이었다. 하지만 최근에는 국제투자규범에서 국민대우의 내용을 단독으로 규정하는 독립형 국민대우조항으로 변화되었다. 그리고 국민대우조항에서 “투자의 설립, 인수, 확대, 관리, 수행, 운용 및 매각 또는 기타 처분과 관련해 ”라고 적용대상을 명확히 규정한다. ‘설립’과 ‘인수’가 포함된 국민대우조항은 설립전 투자보호형 국민대우조항이다. 현재 주요국가의 모델투자협정과 최근에 체결되는 투자협정은 모두 이 형태를 취한다. 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결중재에서 국민대우의 실체적 요건으로 ①투자자와 수용국 투자자간 ‘동종상황’ 비교 ② 차별대우의 존재 ③차별대우 목적의 정당성이라는 3가지 실체적 요건이 확립되었다. 그리고 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결 중재판정에서는 이 요건이 매우 엄격하게 지켜지고 있으며 이견도 없다. 다만 동종상황의 해석에서 최근에 논의되고 있는 것이 동종사업간 동일한 법제도하에 놓여 있어야 한다는 ‘법적요구’가 추가되었다. 동종업자간 동종의 법제도를 적용받는 것이 주요한 요건으로 확립되었다. 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결 중재판정에서는 WTO/GATT 국민대우 법리 인용에 대하여 부정적이다. 그렇지만 GATT제20조와 같은 공공위생과 환경보호 등 공익을 이유로 하는 일반예외조항 적용은 긍정적이다. 그것은 국제투자규범에 일반예외조항과 같은 근거가 없는 경우가 있기 때문이다. 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결중재 선례들을 살펴보면 중재 신청인은 국민대우 위반과 동시에 F&ET조항 위반을 주장하는 경우가 대부분이다. 이는 차별이라는 법리가 중첩되기 때문이다. 실제로 국민대우는 수용국의 경제주권 측면에서 매우 유연하게 해석되어, 위반으로 판정되는 선례는 드물다. 오히려 정책의 실행과정에서 발생하는 여러 가지 차별문제는 F&ET위반을 구성하게 된다. 국민대우조항과 관련하여 문제가 되는 것은 수용국의 정책시행에서 표면상 무차별이지만 사실상 혹은 위장된 차별은 곳곳에서 존재한다. 예를들어 국가안보를 이유로 하는 외국인투자의 제한이다. 이는 국내법으로 제한하기 때문에 이론상으로는 국민대우의 위반으로 취급될 가능성이 크다. 또한 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결 중재에서는 WTO법 인용에 부정적이다. 하지만 지적재산권과 같은 분야에서 국민대우 위반 청구가 발생하는 경우에는 준거법이 없다. 실제로 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결 중재와 WTO분쟁해결절차를 동시에 진행한 경우가 있다. 따라서 투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결절차와 WTO투자자와 국가간 분쟁해결절차의 경합문제는 남은 과제이다.

GATT/WTO 협정상 내국민대우 원칙과 투자협정상 내국민대우 원칙

이영희 연세대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.1

일반적으로 외국인 투자자가 투자를 할 때 우려하는 것 중 하나는 투자유치국으로부터 유치국의 자국민 투자자 혹은 제3국의 투자자에 비해 불리한 대우를 받을 수 있다는 점이다. 이러한 우려를 반영하여 대부분의 투자협정에서는 내국민대우(National Treatment)원칙과 최혜국대우(Most-Favored-Nation Treatment)원칙을 명문화하고 있다. 내국인 투자자와 외국인 투자자의 차별, 즉 ‘종적 차별’을금지하는 내국민대우 원칙은 국제무역에 관한 규범인 GATT/WTO에 비해 투자협정에서 일관된 법리가 상대적으로 덜 축적되어 있다. 투자협정과 무역규범은 그 용어, 대상, 적용측면에서 많은 차이를 보인다. 그러나 상대적으로 일관된 법리가 축적되어 있는 GATT/WTO 내국민대우의 법리를 분석하고 투자협정의 내국민대우원칙 규정과 관련 판례를 살펴봄으로써 GATT/WTO의 내국민대우 법리를 투자협정과 비교분석하고자 하였다. 투자협정상 내국민대우 위반을 판정하기 위한 1단계는 비교대상인 국내투자자/투자와 외국인투자자/투자가 ‘동일 상황’에 있는가이다. 2단계는 ‘불리한 대우’(less favorable treatment)의 존재이며 3단계는 내국민대우 위반인 투자유치국의 조치를 정당화할 수 있는 예외의 존재여부에 대한 검토이다. 투자협정상 내국민대우 위반과 관련된 중재판례의 태도가 상이하게 나타나나, 대략적인 공통점을 찾아보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 내국민대우 위반 판정의핵심인 ‘동일 상황’(like circumstances)의 판단에 있어 가장 많이 이용되는 방법은 ‘동일 사업 혹은 산업’기준(the same business or economic sector)이다. 그러나 같은 사업을 영위하더라도 동일 상황에 있지 않다고 판정한 사례가 존재함은 앞서 살펴본 바와 같다. 둘째, 불리한 대우(less favorable treatment)의존재 검토단계에서 다수 중재판례의 입장은 ‘법적 차별’ 뿐만 아니라 ‘사실상 차별’도 포함하는 것이다. ‘차별적 의도’가 내국민대우 위반의 독립적인 검토요건인가에 대해 대다수의 판례는 조치의 ‘의도’가 아닌 ‘영향 혹은 결과’(impact or result)가 결정적인 요건이라는 입장인 것으로 보인다. 셋째, 내국민대우 위반을정당화하는 요건에 대한 검토에 있어서는 협정에서 명시적으로 언급된 예외에해당하는 경우, 투자유치국의 차별적 조치는 정당화 될 수 있다. 주목할 부분은 일부 중재판례에서는 정부의 정당한 정책 목표를 ‘like circumstances’단계에서 고려하여 정당한 정책 목표가 존재할 경우, 동일한 산업에 있는 내외국인 투자자/투자인 경우라도 like circumstances에 있지 않는 것으로 간주하여내국민대우 위반이 성립하지 않는 것으로 판시하였다는 점이다. 이는 GATT/WTO의 내국민대우 위반 판정 시 동종상품 판정단계에서 ‘조치목적설’을 연상하게 한다. ‘정부의 정당한 정책적 목적’은 투자유치국의 조치가 일응 내국민대우 위반을 구성하는 것으로 간주되는 경우 그러한 위반을 정당화하기 위한 단계에서 고려될 수도 있다. GATT/WTO분쟁에서 패널과 상소기구는 ‘조치목적설’이 GATT 제XX조를 형해화 할 수 있다는 점 등을 들어 주로 BTA Approach에따라 ‘사안별 원칙’에 입각하여 ‘동종상품’을 판단하고, ‘정부의 정당한 목적’은주로 제XX조의 일반적 예외에서 판단해 왔다. GATT/WTO협정과 투자협정은 조약기초자들의 의도, 협정문의 문언, 조약의객체와 목적면에 비추어 볼 때 구별되며, 따라서 GATT/WTO 법리를 그대로투자협정에 적용하기... What many foreign investors are highly concerned about is the risks of being given less favorable treatment than national investors of host state. Mindful of this concern, therefore, most international investment agreements (IIA) stipulate National Treatment Clause under which member states shall not give less favorable treatment to foreign investors or investments in like situations(or circumstances) than domestic investors or investments. Stipulated in the GATT Art. III, National Treatment constitutes one of the core non-discrimination principle along with Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and has coherent and consistent jurisprudence cumulated by Panel and Appellate Body reports. On the contrary, lack of coherent national treatment jurisprudence in IIA is likely to lead to investment disputes between foreign investors and host state. Therefore, a study on GATT/WTO Panel and Appellate Body reports and practices relating to national treatment disputes will help to prevent possible disputes concerning national treatment between foreign investors and host state. True, IIAs are quite different from international trade agreements in many respects including their wordings, subjects and application. In order to examine whether the host state violates national treatment clause in investment treaty, above all, it is necessary to identify whether domestic investors/investments and foreign investors/investments concerned are situated in ‘like circumstances.’ Second, the existence of less favorable treatment should be established by the claimant. Third, if there are legitimate non-protectionist rationales, the host state should justify differences in treatment. First, in examining like circumstances, many IIA tribunals have frequently relied on the element of ‘the same business or economic sector’. However,the tribunals have taken inconsistent approaches in determining the appropriate comparator for the purposes of the national treatment analysis. Some national treatment cases generally illustrates a tendency to narrowly define the comparator (i.e. in Methanex case, the tribunal like in all relevant aspects), while other tribunals compares investments in very different economic sectors that are not in a competitive relationship. Second, when it comes to the analysis of less favorable treatment, most tribunals state that both de jure and de facto discrimination are prohibited. Moreover, it is said that proof of protectionist or discriminatory intent is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a finding that there has been a breach of national treatment. The analysis focuses on the objective effect of the treatment in question. Third, an assessment of the host state`s legitimate policy rationale is relevant to the first step of analysis in determining like circumstances and the third step in assessing whether it is possible to justify the host state`s different treatment between foreign and domestic investors/investments. Considering host state`s regulatory purpose of treatment in the first step in determining like circumstances, which is mostly rejected by many IIA tribunals, is similar to “Aim-and-Effect” approach in assessing ‘likeness’ of domestic and imported goods under GATT Art. III. Given differences in texts, wording, objects and purposes of GATT and IIAs, it is clear that GATT jurisprudnece should not be uncritically transported into international investment law. In several IIA national treatment cases, however, claimants have relied on Article III, GATT,national treatment and like products jurisprudence to support arguments that investments are in like circumstances. The possibility cannot be excluded completely that there might be cases where ‘like product’ test is one of the important factors to consider in determining ‘like circumstances’. In that case, GATT national treatment jurisprudence might be useful for a tribunal in assessing whether the goods produced by foreign and domestic investo...

GATT/WTO 협정상 내국민대우 원칙과 투자협정상 내국민대우 원칙

이영희 ( Young Hee Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2010 法學硏究 Vol.20 No.1

What many foreign investors are highly concerned about is the risks of being given less favorable treatment than national investors of host state. Mindful of this concern, therefore, most international investment agreements (IIA) stipulate National Treatment Clause under which member states shall not give less favorable treatment to foreign investors or investments in like situations(or circumstances) than domestic investors or investments. Stipulated in the GATT Art. III, National Treatment constitutes one of the core non-discrimination principle along with Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and has coherent and consistent jurisprudence cumulated by Panel and Appellate Body reports. On the contrary, lack of coherent national treatment jurisprudence in IIA is likely to lead to investment disputes between foreign investors and host state. Therefore, a study on GATT/WTO Panel and Appellate Body reports and practices relating to national treatment disputes will help to prevent possible disputes concerning national treatment between foreign investors and host state. True, IIAs are quite different from international trade agreements in many respects including their wordings, subjects and application. In order to examine whether the host state violates national treatment clause in investment treaty, above all, it is necessary to identify whether domestic investors/investments and foreign investors/investments concerned are situated in `like circumstances.` Second, the existence of less favorable treatment should be established by the claimant. Third, if there are legitimate non-protectionist rationales, the host state should justify differences in treatment. First, in examining like circumstances, many IIA tribunals have frequently relied on the element of `the same business or economic sector`. However, the tribunals have taken inconsistent approaches in determining the appropriate comparator for the purposes of the national treatment analysis. Some national treatment cases generally illustrates a tendency to narrowly define the comparator (i.e. in Methanex case, the tribunal like in all relevant aspects), while other tribunals compares investments in very different economic sectors that are not in a competitive relationship. Second, when it comes to the analysis of less favorable treatment, most tribunals state that both de jure and de facto discrimination are prohibited. Moreover, it is said that proof of protectionist or discriminatory intent is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a finding that there has been a breach of national treatment. The analysis focuses on the objective effect of the treatment in question. Third, an assessment of the host state`s legitimate policy rationale is relevant to the first step of analysis in determining like circumstances and the third step in assessing whether it is possible to justify the host state`s different treatment between foreign and domestic investors/investments. Considering host state`s regulatory purpose of treatment in the first step in determining like circumstances, which is mostly rejected by many IIA tribunals, is similar to Aim-and-Effect approach in assessing `likeness` of domestic and imported goods under GATT Art. III. Given differences in texts, wording, objects and purposes of GATT and IIAs, it is clear that GATT jurisprudnece should not be uncritically transported into international investment law. In several IIA national treatment cases, however, claimants have relied on Article III, GATT, national treatment and like products jurisprudence to support arguments that investments are in like circumstances. The possibility cannot be excluded completely that there might be cases where `like product` test is one of the important factors to consider in determining `like circumstances`. In that case, GATT national treatment jurisprudence might be useful for a tribunal in assessing whether the goods produced by foreign and domestic investors are `like.` In this respect, GATT national treatment jurisprudence serve as a useful legal guidance for a tribunal to interpret national treatment provision in investment treaty at least when it is relevant.

服务投资领域的国民待遇 : 基于贸易规则和投资规则的比较分析

艾素君(Ai Sujun) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2020 圓光法學 Vol.36 No.4

服务领域的外国直接投资,从理论上来说,既可能受国际投资法,主要是双边投资条约和区域一体化条约的调整,也可能受国际服务贸易法尤其是GATS的约束。但是二者的规定,并不完全相同。具体到国民待遇而言,贸易和投资领域在诸方面存在差异:就文本规定而言,GATS国民待遇的适用对象是“相同服务和服务提供者”,而投资条约下的国民待遇将外国投资者及其投资享受的待遇限定为“相似情形”下;就争端解决机构对国民待遇条款的解释和适用而言,GATT/GATS国民待遇条款下的相似性分析集中在对外国产品或服务和国内产品或服务的竞争条件的分析上,着重关注市场准入机会和整体福利。对较低待遇的评估是基于外国相同产品或服务这一整体,而非单一的生产者。而投资仲裁庭对相似性的分析尚未形成统一的标准,对较低待遇的分析基于单一的外国投资者,且允许对政府措施的背景和目的予以考虑。这种规则和实践的差异无疑会造成贸易和投资规则适用的潜在冲突。目前除部分区域贸易协定通过不同方式解决此类冲突,明确其受贸易规则或投资规则或双重规制以外,多边层面缺乏相关规定。伴随着经济一体化的逐步深入,贸易和投资的相互融合,贸易法和投资法之间的联系进一步增强。在国际投资体制改革的背景下,越来越多的投资条约开始纳入投资自由化条款和一般例外条款。在投资自由化的背景下,国际投资条约同样以维护外国投资者在东道国境内的平等竞争机会为其宗旨,而一般例外条款的增加将会对国民待遇条款的适用法理产生重要影响。与此同时,争端解决机构在国民待遇的解释和适用路径上也呈现出相似性。尤其从晚近WTO争端解决机构的实践来看,在确定较低待遇时考察争议措施的目的和宗旨似乎已为WTO 上诉机构所认可。在多边立法尚未对贸易和投资条约的适用关系予以明确之前,争端解决机构之间的深入沟通和相互借鉴,是从实体法层面协调国际贸易法和国际投资法下国民待遇义务的现实途径。 In theory, Foreign investment in service sectors is regulated both by international investment law, especially BITs and FTAs, and International trade law, or more exactly GATS. But their corresponding provisions are not the same. In terms of national treatment, there exist textual discrepancies and different interpretation by trade and investment tribunals. National treatment in GATS applies to “like services and service suppliers” while investment treaties define national treatment as no less favorable treatment “in like circumstances”. When interpreting national treatment, GATT/WTO tribunals take a two-step approach which includes the determination of likeness and no less favorable treatment. The analysis of likeness is to determine whether products or services and service suppliers are in a competitive relationship with each other. The determination of no less favorable treatment demands a group analysis, focusing on whether the contested measures has a disproportionate effect on foreign products. Such analysis reflects the concern of trade law for market access and overall welfare. In contrast, arbitral tribunals disagree with each other on the determination of “like circumstance”. The analysis of no less favorable treatment is based on individual investor, holding that foreign investors are entitled to the most favorable treatment for domestic investors. Moreover, consideration of objective and purposes of contested measured is also permitted. With the development of economic integration, trade and investment are increasingly inseparable and the link between international trade law and investment law is growing stronger. In the context of reform of international investment regime, more and more international investment treaties incorporate such provisions as liberalization and general exceptions. The preamble of some treaties confirms that foreign investors enjoy equal competitive opportunity in domestic market. The inclusion of general exceptions will exert great influence on the jurisprudence of national treatment. At the same time, trade and investment tribunals begin to take similar approach in interpreting national treatment. The WTO appellate body in recent cases seems to open the door for consideration of objectives and purposes of governmental policy in the determination of “no less favorable treatment”, which is similar to practice of investment tribunals. Before the multilateral legislations respond to the potential conflicts between trade and investment law, the judicial dialogue and cross-fertilisation are a feasible way for harmonization of national treatment in the two regimes.

국민건강보험법상 ‘임의 비급여 진료행위’의 부당성

김정중 사법발전재단 2012 사법 Vol.1 No.21

This is a commentary on the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27639, 2010Du27646 decided June 18, 2012 which held as to whether, in treatment area not constituting the non-reimbursable treatment area (so-called, legally non-reimbursable treatment act) under the Act and statutes, the act of a medical care institution treating health insurance member or dependents against the medical care payment criteria, etc. and collecting expenses from members, etc. (so-called, voluntary non-reimbursable treatment act) constitutes “collecting medical care payment expenses from, or assessing them on member, etc. by fraudulent or any other unjust means” as an element of the disposition of unjust enrichment collection or suspension of business of medical care institution under the National Health Insurance Act. The Supreme Court examined national health insurance system's purpose, and the National Health Insurance Act and statutes system, etc. It held that 「medical care institution shall provide a medical care payment to members, etc., barring legally non-reimbursable treatment act, according to the criteria and procedure of medical care payment under the Act and statutes in principle; it shall follow criteria and procedure under the Act and statute in collecting medical care payment expense from insurer and member, etc.; and the voluntary non-reimbursable treatment act violates the criteria and it constitutes in principle “fraudulent or any other unjust means.”」Nonetheless, the Supreme Court recognized the exceptions in light of medical practitioner's best treatment duty under the medical law and treatment contract and the patient's right to receive a proper treatment. And it held as criteria for exceptions that a medical care institution has to show procedural issues coordinating irrational medical care payment criteria, etc. rationally, medical care institution's medical need for such treatment beyond the medical care payment criteria, etc., explanation and consent received from member, etc. and it bears the burden of proving them. By this decision, it overruled a precedent holding voluntary non-reimbursable treatment acts without exception as unjust (The Supreme Court Decision 2006Du10368, June 15, 2007, etc.). The judgment of this case can be evaluated to reflect a medical reality where, with maintenance of existing national health insurance system, during the process of medical care institution doing its best in treatment, it collects expenses from patient outside of the health insurance framework. The Supreme Court recognized exceptional permission of voluntary non-reimbursable treatment act and presented its criteria. Thus, the court's burden for hearing and deciding related issues has increased. More specific decision criteria as to voluntary non-reimbursable treatment act's exception criteria are expected to be formed in the future through the parties' dispute, fact-finding, and specific case holdings. 이 글은 국민건강보험법상 요양기관이 법령이 정한 비급여대상(이른바 ‘법정 비급여 진료행위’)에 해당하지 아니한 진료영역에서 건강보험의 가입자 또는 피부양자에게 요양급여기준 등을 벗어나 진료하고 그 비용을 가입자 등으로부터 지급받는 행위(이른바 ‘임의 비급여 진료행위’)가 부당이득 징수처분 또는 요양기관 업무정지처분의 요건인 ‘사위 기타 부당한 방법으로 가입자 등으로부터 요양급여비용을 지급받거나 가입자 등에게 이를 부담시킨 때’에 해당하는지 여부에 관한 대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2010두27639, 2010두27646 전원합의체 판결의 해설이다. 대법원은 국민건강보험제도의 취지, 국민건강보험법령의 체계 등을 살핀 후, “요양기관은 법정 비급여 진료행위가 아닌 한 원칙적으로 요양급여기준에 관한 법령이 정한 기준과 절차에 따라 가입자 등에게 요양급여를 제공하여야 하고, 보험자와 가입자 등으로부터 요양급여비용을 지급받을 때에도 그 산정기준에 관한 법령에서 정한 기준과 절차에 따라야 하는데, 임의 비급여 진료행위는 그 기준에 위반되는 것이므로 원칙적으로 ‘사위 기타 부당한 방법’에 해당한다.”는 취지로 판시하였다. 그러나 한편 대법원은 의료인에게 의료법상 또는 진료계약상 최선의 진료를 다할 의무가 있고, 환자에게도 적절한 진료를 받을 권리가 있음을 고려하여 그 예외를 인정하고, 그 기준으로 요양급여기준 등의 불합리를 합리적으로 조정할 수 있는 절차에 관한 사항, 요양기관이 요양급여기준 등을 벗어나 진료하여야 할 의학적 필요성, 가입자 등에 대한 설명과 동의 등을 제시함과 아울러 그 예외적 사정에 대한 증명책임은 요양기관에게 있음을 밝혔다. 이로써 종래 임의 비급여 진료행위를 예외 없이 부당하다고 보았던 판례(대법원 2007. 6. 15. 선고 2006두10368 판결 등)를 변경하였다. 이 사건 판결은 기존 국민건강보험 체계를 최대한 유지하면서 요양기관이 최선의 진료의무를 다하는 과정에서 건강보험의 틀을 벗어나 진료하고 그 비용을 환자 측으로부터 수수하는 의료현실을 반영한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. 대법원이 임의 비급여 진료행위의 예외적 허용가능성을 인정하고 그 기준을 제시함에 따라 관련 쟁점에 관하여 법원의 심리부담은 크게 증가할 것이다. 임의 비급여 진료행위의 예외적 허용에 관한 보다 구체적인 판단 기준은 앞으로 당사자의 공방과 관련 사실관계에 관한 심리, 구체적 판단 사례 등을 통하여 구체화 될 것으로 기대한다.

내국민대우원칙에 따른 중국 외자기업법제 개편논의와 전망

강효백(KANG HYO BAIK) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2006 통상법률 Vol.- No.71

The WTO system made all membership countries to follow the international trade regulations system, and the fundamental measures of China on joining WTO is to complete its market economy law system to match the needs of market economy and WTO demands. China's foreign investment law still includes articles that are contrary to national treatment and basic principles of WTO despite the revision in year 2000 and 2001. Also, there were no change or actual improvements done on the collision and contradiction between laws, and those with their superior ordinances as well as disharmony between foreigners investment enterprise and company laws, and other civil, mercantile laws. This situation is negatively and passively influencing China's politic issues called as creation of a healthy, clear foreign investment inducing environment. However, in August 2006, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress commenced the discussion on the amendment of the Income Taxes Act that unifies the enterprise income taxes of domestic and foreign enterprises and this law is expected to take effect as of 2008. Such movement for unifying the income taxes of foreign and domestic capital corporations is directly related, in terms of depth and timing, to the long-debated topic of the amendment of China's foreign investment law system. The concern with the China's foreign investment law is the fact that, rather than treating foreign investors with disadvantage and prejudice, the domestic enterprises are being held in unfavorable positions because the foreign investments are being granted with too much privilege. Therefore the process of the national treatment became essential in revolutionizing the China's foreign investment law system. China, which has become the country in possession of the most foreign exchange, changed their attitude from what they used to passively and reluctantly seek for the need of amending the National Treatment as a mandatory WTO measure to what they now try to actively rationalize the need for an amendment that complies with the National Treatment while the academia is pursuing a balanced combination of the China's Transcendental National Treatment and the WTO's National Treatment. Even if the Income Taxes Act that unifies the income taxes of foreign-domestic enterprises is introduced, considering the positive roles that foreign enterprises are responsible for and the priority that the WTO grants to developing countries in terms of their investment, a Unified Corporation Act that will effectively demonstrate the national treatment in a short period of time seems difficult. Considering the fact that the WTO National Treatment is in gradual progress and that China is familiar with procedural unified law translation by disperse lawmaking, the Code of Foreign Investment Unification theory seems like a more reasonable and feasible amendment method than the mono-track system amendment theory or the standard corporation act amendment theory. Taking into account WTO international trade regulations, world trends of economy globalization, and the Chinese macro-economy, China, hereafter, is expected to concentrate all efforts in improving the environment of hosting foreign capitals by heading towards the ‘national treatment for global convenience’ rather than the ‘ultimate treatment for the Chinese tradition.’ Meanwhile, the country is viewed to change from 'code system' to 'mono-track system' after changing its China's foreign investment law system from 'dual-track system' to 'code system'.

법경제학의 관점에서 본 임의비급여의 허용 문제 - 대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2010두27639, 27646 전원합의체판결을 중심으로

이화연 한국법경제학회 2016 법경제학연구 Vol.13 No.1

The Supreme Court has consistently adjudicated that medical care institutions providing medical treatment, covered by the National Health Insurance under the National Health Insurance Act, that exceeds the standard coverage level of the medical care benefit of the health insurance subscriber or dependent, and therefore being paid for the medical fees from the health insurance subscriber or dependent directly, is qualified as a requisite of unjust enrichment collection measure or suspension of service, and such an act of uninsured arbitrary medical treatment is unjust without exception. However, on June 18th 2012, from the Supreme Court consultation 2010두27639, 27646 case verdict, the Supreme Court changed its position, acknowledged that there are cases where uninsured arbitrary medical treatment can be exceptionally approved, and explicitly explained the specific requirements for certain approvals. The Supreme Court also mentioned that the burden of proof is on the medical care institution. Whether to approve an arbitrary uninsured medical treatment is a subject of interpretation of the National Heath Insurance Act. Approving an arbitrary uninsured medical treatment in principle is impossible as it is against the original intent of current regulations that are designed to cover a certain set of medical treatments under medical care benefit. Also, it has a risk to demolish the foundation of the National Heath Insurance system as a social security system. However, completely disallowing an arbitrary uninsured medical treatment is also unreasonable as there is a structural limit to the National Health Insurance system itself. Plus, there could be more benefits for individual and society, such as the right to health, the patient's right to receive effective and appropriate treatment, and the doctor’s right to select the treatment method, which is the purpose of the National Health Insurance system that can be gained by exceptionally allowing certain arbitrary uninsured medical treatment. As a result, it is economically more effective and beneficial to provide exceptional permission for arbitrary uninsured medical treatment. The Supreme Court verdict is meaningful and reasonable as it has admitted the possibilityto approve an arbitrary uninsured medical treatment under the consideration of structural and realistic circumstance around such activities and showcased specific and detailed approval criteria. 국민건강보험법상 요양기관이 법령이 정한 비급여 대상에 해당하지 아니한 진료영역에서건강보험의 가입자 또는 피부양자에게 요양급여기준 등을 벗어나 진료하고 그 비용을 가입자등으로부터 지급받는 행위(이른바‘임의비급여 진료행위’)가 부당이득 징수처분 또는 요양기관 업무정지처분의 요건인‘사위 기타 부당한 방법으로 가입자 등으로부터 요양급여비용을 지급받거나 가입자 등에게 이를 부담시킨 때’에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 대법원은 종래에는 위와 같은 임의비급여 진료행위는 예외 없이 부당하다고 보았으나, 대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2010두27639, 2010두27646 전원합의체 판결로 견해를 변경하여 임의비급여 진료행위가 예외적으로 허용되는 경우가 있음을 인정하면서 그 허용요건을 구체적으로 제시함과 아울러 그 예외적 사정에 대한 증명책임은 요양기관에게 있음을 밝혔다. 임의비급여 진료행위를 원칙적으로 허용하는 것은 진료행위를 원칙적으로 요양급여 대상으로 포섭시키고자 한 국민건강보험 관계 법령의 규율체계에 어긋날 뿐만 아니라 사회보장제도로서의 국민건강보험제도의 기반을 붕괴시킬 위험성이 있다. 그러나 국민건강보험제도 자체에 구조적 한계가 존재하는 점을 고려하면 임의비급여 진료행위를 전면적으로 불허하는 것 역시 불합리하다. 국민건강보험제도의 존재목적인 국민의 건강권 보호, 환자의 유효적절한 진료를 받을 권리의 보장 등 임의비급여 진료행위를 예외적으로 허용함으로 인한 개인적·사회적편익 역시 분명히 존재하고, 위 편익은 그로 인한 비용에 비하여 더 크다고 할 것이므로, 임의비급여 진료행위를 예외적으로 허용하는 것이 경제학적 관점에서 더‘효율’적이다. 대상판결은 임의비급여 진료행위를 둘러싼 구조적·현실적 여건을 고려하여 임의비급여진료행위의 예외적 허용 가능성을 인정하고 구체적인 허용요건을 제시한 것으로서 국민의 의료보장을 위한 비용과 편익을 고려한 효율의 관점에서도 타당하다. 임의비금여 진료행위의 문제는 지속적으로 제기되어 왔고, 기존 제도만으로는 그 해결에 한계가 존재함에도 불구하고 이해관계의 대립 등으로 인해 입법에 따른 해결이 이루어지지 않고 있던 현실을 고려하면, 대상판결을 통하여 법원이 먼저 위 문제의 해결방향을 제시한 것은 필요한 조치였다고 보인다. 다만법원의 개입에 의하여 임의비급여 문제를 해결하는 방식에는 일부 비효율적인 측면이 존재하므로, 위 문제는 궁극적으로 입법이나 행정의 개선을 통하여 해결되어야 한다고 생각한다.

FTA 투자규칙상 환경보호규제에 관한 연구

김인숙(In Sook Kim) 서울국제법연구원 2012 서울국제법연구 Vol.19 No.2

한국이 체결하고 있는 FTA투자규칙에는 투자유치국의 정당한 환경보호규제 권한을 보장하는 규정과 동시에 외국인투자를 보호하기 위해 환경보호규제를 제한하는 규정들이 다수 포함되어 있다. 당사국들에게 이러한 규정들은 국제법적 권리이자 동시에 의무로서의 역할을 하게 되는데 이는 동전의 양면과 같이 항상 함께 존재해야 하고 함께 이행되어야 하는 관계에 있다. 그러한 이유로 FTA 투자규칙상 환경 관련 규정을 국내적으로 이행함에 있어 다소의 문제를 발생할 수 있는 것으로 보인다. 이는 기존의 국제투자관련 분쟁사례에서 확인되듯이 환경보호를 이유로 한 규제정책이 외국투자자들에 대한 권리침해 문제로 소송의 대상이 되는 경우가 종종 발생하고 있기 때문이다. 따라서 우리나라가 이미 체결하고 있는 FTA 투자규칙 뿐만 아니라 향후 우리나라가 다수의 국가들과 FTA를 통해 투자 분야를 개방하게 되는 경우 FTA 투자규칙상의 환경 관련 조항들과 관련해서 발생하게 될 분쟁가능성에 대해 대비할 필요가 있다. 한국이 체결한 FTA 투자규칙의 국내적 이행과 관련한 분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 다음과 같은 사항들이 고려될 필요가 있다. 우선 환경정책을 입안하고 집행하는 전 과정에서 투명성원칙을 고려하고, 이와 관련하여 환경보호규제에 대한 모든 정보들에 외국투자자들이 접근할 수 있는 제도적 절차도 함께 보장될 필요가 있다. 특히 국제투자분쟁례에서 투명성원칙을 충족시키지 못하여 최소기준대우에 위반된다는 사례가 있었다는 점을 고려할 때 반드시 외국투자자와 관련된 환경정책의 입안 및 집행과 관련하여 투명성의 제고가 필요하다. 또한 환경관련 정책의 집행에 있어서는 투자자의 합리적 기대가 훼손되지 않도록 일관된 방식으로 진행되어야 하고, 합리적 이유 없이 환경정책이 수정되는 경우에도 투자자의 합리적 기대가 침해될 수 있으므로 환경정책의 수정에 대한 합리적 명분을 갖추어 분쟁에 대비할 필요가 있을 것이다. 한편 국제투자분쟁례를 살펴보면 BIT와 FTA 모두와 관련하여 분쟁이 발생하고 있다. 그러나 BIT와 FTA의 적용대상과 원칙, 지향하는 목적들이 조금씩 상이하기 때문에 예전에 BIT에 근거해서 다루어진 판정이 상황에 따라 FTA에서 동일한 쟁점으로 다루어지지만 그 판정의 법리가 달라지는 경우가 종종 발생하고 있다. 우리가 국제투자분쟁기관의 법리 적용 및 운영과 관련한 태도의 변화에 적응하고 관련 분쟁에 대비하기 위해서는 환경보호규제가 문제된 투자분쟁례에서 투자보호 및 정당한 환경조치 규정들과 관련된 구체적 적용 법리를 조사ㆍ분석하고, 관련 자료를 축적할 필요가 있을 것이다. The Investment Rules of FTAs concluded by Korea prevent a Party from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any measure otherwise consistent with the Investment Chapter that it considers appropriate to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental concerns. The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing their environmental measures. Accordingly, a Party should not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such measures as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion, or retention in its territory of an investment of an investor. Also, provided that such measures are not applied in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or unjustifiable manner, and provided that such measures do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade or investment, necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, shall not be construed to prevent a Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures. But to protect the environment, the regulatory authority of host State is necessary to be justified according to national treatment, MFN treatment and minimum standard treatment obligation. The national treatment(or MFN treatment ) obligation is relative, or contingent, obligation. It requires that a host State treat foreign investments or investors as well as in like circumstances national investor(or investors of the other Party). A national treatment(or MFN treatment) analysis thus usually requires identifying the appropriate comparator against which to measure the allegedly less favourable treatment. Identification of the appropriate comparator is probably the most important part of the national treatment(or MFN treatment) analysis, as the outcome in most cases hinges on whether the more favourable treatment was accorded to an entity in like circumstances. On the one hand, the national treatment(or MFN treatment) obligation protects against discrimination, whether de jure or de facto, on basis of nationality. In practice there are few cases of de jure discrimination. Most of the cases centre on the differential effect of a facially neutral measures. Also the issue of what constitutes an indirect expropriation has been one of constant debate since concluding KORUS FTA. An indirect expropriation is not the physical invasion of the property that characterizes not nationalizations or expropriations that has assumed importance, but the erosion of rights associated with ownership by State interferences. For an indirect expropriation to be legal, it must not be discriminatory against the investor, it must be for a public purpose, in accordance with the process of law and it must be accompanied by full compensation which is prompt, adequate, and effective.

투자협정상 「내국민대우(National Treatment」조항 작성시 유의사항에 관한 연구

오원석(Won-Suk Oh),서경(Kyung Seo),이경화(Jing-Hua Li) 한국무역상무학회 2011 貿易商務硏究 Vol.49 No.-

Clauses on national treatment in the bilateral investment treaties including FTA state that, the foreign investor and his investments are 'accorded treatment no less favourable than that which the host state accords to its own investors'. Hence the purpose of the clause is to oblige a host state to make no negative differentiation between foreign and national investors when enacting and applying its rules and regulations and thus to promote the position of the foreign investor to the level accorded to nationals. As a matter of legal drafting technique, while the basic clause is generally the same, the practical implications differ due to more or less wide-ranging exemptions of certain business sectors. It is generally agreed that the application of the clause is fact-specific. This paper deals with problems in drafting clauses on national treatment in practice, introduces several considerations to adjust the level of national treatment, so it can be made more represents the interest of our country.