Do Property Rights in Personal Data Make Sense After the Big Data Turn?

Nadezhda Purtova 서울대학교 공익산업법센터 2017 경제규제와 법 Vol.10 No.2

This paper offers an update - from the European perspective - to the debate on property rights in personal data. It argues that recent developments in the data processing technology and practices, specifically, the AI-driven Big Data Analytics, have rendered personal data a difficult object of enforceable individual property rights. There are two main reasons for this. First, data processing resulting from a decision of one person will inevitably have spill-over effects on others, e.g. as a result of profiling, or as a result of the same piece of data relating to a group of people, e.g. genetic data. This phenomenon is also called ‘network effect’. Therefore, true individual control over personal data and also the effective enforcement of the individual property rights in personal data are difficult if not impossible to achieve. Second, creating and managing property rights that are transparent in terms of the object of property and establishing the rights-holders is also challenging. This is due to the dynamic approach to the definition of personal data adopted in Europe: the same piece of data, depending on a particular context, can be personal and non-personal, more or less likely to relate to an identifiable natural person, and with a stronger or weaker link to that person. While it is debatable if this necessarily constitutes a problem for the purposes of applying the data protection law, and if the broadest definition of personal data can achieve the goals of complete and effective protection, enforcing property rights in personal data is difficult. The difficulty lies, first, in determining at which point the level of relation to an individual is sufficient to establish property rights, and second, in tracing the presence of such a relation to a person, the ‘data owner’.

미국 특허담보제도의 역사적 기원

윤권순 ( Yoon Kwon-soon ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2021 서울대학교 法學 Vol.62 No.4

미국의 특허담보(security interests in patents) 제도는 저당권설정자에게 저당물을 점유하여 사용하게 하면서, 저당물의 등록을 요구하는 부동산 저당(mortgage) 제도를 기반으로 탄생했다. 미국 독립 전에는 토지 등을 저당물로 한 부동산저당제도가 먼저 도입되었고, 17세기 남부 식민지 지역에서 저당물의 대상이 농업과 관련된 ‘동산·노예’로 확대 되었다. 미국 독립 이후인 19세기 북동부 지역에서 섬유산업이 발달하게 되어, 기계의 가치가 높아지게 됨에 따라, 인적재산(동산)을 저당물로 특화한 인적재산(동산) 저당 권법이 제정되었다. 예컨대, 1832년 제정된 매사추세츠 법률(An Act to prevent Fraud in the transfer of Personal Property)은 법률 명칭과 법조문에 ‘chattel(동산)’보다 더 넓은 개념인 인적재산(personal property)이라는 용어를 사용하고 있다. 1793년 개정된 미국 특허법이 특허권을 배타적 재산권(exclusive property)이라고 명시하고 있고, 1845년 뉴욕의 연방지방법원이 이를 인적재산권(personal property)으로 이해했다는 점에서 동 법률은 특허권이 저당권의 대상으로 들어오는 문을 열어 주었다고 할 수 있다. 뉴욕 주 대법원은 1854년 특허를 대상으로 한 저당권설정의 효력을 인정한 판결을 내리게 된다. 한편, 1870년 특허법은 양도와 관련해서 저당권을 언급하지만, 그 유효성은 규정하지 않고 있다. 1891년 연방대법원은 1870년 특허법이 특허권의 양도가 저당권설정계약으로 이루어 질 수 있다는 것을 명확히 했다고 판단하여, 특허저당계약의 유효성을 인정하였다. 이로서 특허 저당제도는 확고한 법적 기반을 마련하게 된다. 결론적으로 미국 특허담보제도는 부동산저당제도가 시대의 흐름에 따라 저당물의 대상으로 경제적 가치가 높아지게 되는 노예, 동산, 기계 등을 흡수하는 흐름 속에서 탄생한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 법제라는 맥락에서는 1830년대 북동부 지역의 인적재산 저당법을 기반으로 하여, 1870년 연방특허법과 1891년 연방대법원 판례에 의해 제도적 틀을 갖추게 된 것이라고 평가할 수 있다. 또한 특허권의 경제적 가치가 극대화된 제2차 산업혁명 돌입 시기에 미국 특허담보제도가 탄생했다는 점에서, 기술혁신과 특허제도는 특허담보제도 탄생을 촉발시켰다고 할 수 있다. The U.S. system of security interests in patents was born on the basis of mortgage in real property that required mortgagee to record the mortgage, allowing mortgagor to occupy and use the collateral. The mortgage in real property with land as a collateral was first introduced, and in the 17th century, the subject of mortgage was expanded to negroes and chattels related to agriculture in the southern colonial region. As the textile industry developed in the northeastern region of the 19th century after the independence of the United States, and the value of machinery increased, the ‘personal property(chattel)’ mortgage law was enacted, specializing in personal property(chattel) as collateral. The Massachusetts Act of 1832(An Act to prevent Fraud in the transfer of Personal Property) uses the term ‘personal property’, a broader concept than ‘chattel’ in the title and provisions. The U.S. Patent Act revised in 1793 defines patent rights as exclusive property, and in 1845 the Federal District Court in New York understood them as personal property. Therefore, it can be argued that the 1832 act opened the door for patent rights to enter the mortgage system. The New York Supreme Court ruled in 1854 that the mortgage in patent was valid. On the other hand, the Patent Act of 1870 refered to mortgage related to assignment of patent, but did not specify its validity. In 1891, the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of mortgage in patent, interpreting that the Patent Act of 1870 made clear that the assignment of a patent right could be made by a mortgage. Like this, the Patent Act of 1870 and the case of 1891 gave a firm legal foundation for the birth of the patent mortgage system. In conclusion, the U.S. system of security interests in patents was born in the midst of the flow of ‘the mortgage in real property’ system absorbing slaves, chattel and machinery, whose economic value increases with the trend of the times. In the context of legislation, patent mortgage system was institutionalized by the Federal Patent Act of 1870 and the Supreme Court decision of 1891, based on ‘personal property’ mortgage act of the Northeast of the 1830s. It can also be argued that the Industrial Revolution triggered the birth of the patent security system, given that the patent mortgage system was born at the time of the second industrial revolution, in which the economic value of patent rights was maximized.

부동산 이중매도자의 형사책임

김태수 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2008 法學論文集 Vol.32 No.1

Real-property double-selling is the case that a seller sells a real property twice to each different buyer. Nonetheless, if one side contract of a double selling practice of real-property is void, it would not be taken as double selling. In contrast, if a contract has a cancellation cause, the contract would be valid if a party holding cancellation power does not use the power. Therefore, even though double-selling can stand with cancellation cause, the argument for double-selling looses power after a party cancels a contract retroactively. Contrarily, because, even when there is a cancellation cause in a buyer's side, the contracts is valid until the buyer uses cancellation power, the contracts can be considered as double-selling Our courts have considered the practice of real-property double-selling as a type of misappropriation. Nonetheless, an act of misappropriation shall be punished as a criminal act only when a person who takes care of another person's business breaches trust. The concept of another person's business can be divided into two categories, such as a business for another person and a business of another person. The criminal responsibility of misappropriation should be placed on a practice of double selling only for a business of another person. If not, every single contracting party can be considered to be a person who is doing a business for another person and then may have possibility to take criminal responsibility based on a guilt of misappropriation. In addition, a duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is a business for another person, but not a business of another person. It is because a register should be done in concert by both parties even though a seller took earnest money, part payment and the rest. A duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is not exhaustively a buyer's business but should be considered as a business of a seller as well as a business for a buyer. Therefore, it is not justifiable to punish a person who makes double-selling of real-property. Real-property double-selling is the case that a seller sells a real property twice to each different buyer. Nonetheless, if one side contract of a double selling practice of real-property is void, it would not be taken as double selling. In contrast, if a contract has a cancellation cause, the contract would be valid if a party holding cancellation power does not use the power. Therefore, even though double-selling can stand with cancellation cause, the argument for double-selling looses power after a party cancels a contract retroactively. Contrarily, because, even when there is a cancellation cause in a buyer's side, the contracts is valid until the buyer uses cancellation power, the contracts can be considered as double-selling Our courts have considered the practice of real-property double-selling as a type of misappropriation. Nonetheless, an act of misappropriation shall be punished as a criminal act only when a person who takes care of another person's business breaches trust. The concept of another person's business can be divided into two categories, such as a business for another person and a business of another person. The criminal responsibility of misappropriation should be placed on a practice of double selling only for a business of another person. If not, every single contracting party can be considered to be a person who is doing a business for another person and then may have possibility to take criminal responsibility based on a guilt of misappropriation. In addition, a duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is a business for another person, but not a business of another person. It is because a register should be done in concert by both parties even though a seller took earnest money, part payment and the rest. A duty to cooperatively transfer names on a real-property register is not exhaustively a buyer's business but should be considered as a business of a seller as well as a business for a buyer. Therefore, it is not justifiable to punish a person who makes double-selling of real-property.

재산분할의 본질과 재산분할청구권의 상속성

서순택 ( Seo Soon-taek ) 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2014 외법논집 Vol.38 No.4

재산분할청구권은 혼인이라는 신분관계에서 비롯된 인격적 권리라는 점과 이 권리에 ‘이혼 후 배우자 부양’이라는 사회적 문제에 대응하기 위해서 이른바 ‘부양적 요소’가 내재한다는 사고로부터 권리자의 일신에 전속하는 권리라고 이해되고 있다. 그렇기 때문에 재산분할청구권의 상속성을 연구하기 위해서는 재산분할의 법적 성질 및 재산분할청구권의 일신전속성을 우선적으로 검토할 필요가 있다. 우선 제839조의 2의 법문상 혼인 중 재산형성에의 기여가 전혀 없는 경우에는 재산분할청구권의 존재 자체를 인정할 수 없고, 혼인 중 재산의 형성과정에서 경제능력이 감소되거나 상실되었더라도 그 감소분 또는 상실분이 재산형성에 기여되었다면 그에 대한 청산을 통하여 경제능력의 감소분 내지 상실분은 보전될 수 있으므로, 재산분할은 부양적 요소를 배제한 청산적 의미로만 파악하는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 또한 재산분할청구권은 그 행사여부가 전적으로 권리자에게 맡겨져 있어서 타인에 의하여 행사되는 경우에 권리자의 인격적 침해가 발생할 수 있는 권리라는 점에서 행사상 일신전속권이고, 반드시 그 행사의 효과가 권리자에게만 전속되어야 하는 귀속상의 일신전속권은 아니라고 할 것이기 때문에, 권리자가 이미 사망하여 그의 인격적 이익이 침해될 가능성이 없는 한, 권리자의 생전 행사여부는 동 권리의 상속성에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 할 것이다. 결과적으로 행사상 일신전속권인 재산분할청구권은 이혼 후 권리자가 이를 행사하기 전에 사망한 경우에는 상속인에 의한 행사를 인정해야 하고, 심판청구 후 사망한 경우에는 소송승계를 허용해야 할 것이며, 재산분할을 청산적 의미로만 파악하는 한, 사망한 배우자 일방이 혼인 중 재산형성에 기여한 부분 전체에 대한 상속이 인정되어야 한다. The right of claim for the division of matrimonial property is the right of arranging the matrimonial property after divorce. Through the drastic reform of the Code of Family Law in 1990, it has established such right under Article 839.2. Under the Article, a divorced person by mutual agreement may claim for the division of matrimonial property against another(Section 1). However, if a divorce agreement has not been reached, the court, through the claim of either party, may determine the amount and the means of division by taking the amount of property that the parties have jointly achieved into consideration(Section 2). This right, however, ceases to exist after two years of divorce period(Section 3). Moreover, Article 839.2, as an effect of a divorce agreement, is applied in both cases of judicial divorce(Art. 843) and voidable marriage(Art. 2.1 of the Code of Household Affairs Procedure). And the Article has also been applied in cases of putative marriage by the precedents. Basing such right on the separate property system, the property of one’s own before marriage and the property acquired by one’s name are classified as a unique property under Art. 830 Sec.1. This Article removes an unreasonable outcome that has been emerged in our tradition where the property built by the cooperation of both husband and wife is mostly acquired under the name of husband and, thus, where wife’s contribution has hardly been taken into account. Moreover, the Article practically guarantees the freedom of divorce by providing for an economically incompetent spouse. Thus, the Article tends to materialize the equality of both genders by allowing the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property, irrespective of the fault of a claimant. The legal nature of such right has been roughly divided into two: liquidation theory and liquidationsupporting theory. And the liquidation-supporting theory is currently a majority opinion which understands the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property as a right that has both the eliminative nature of acquired property and the supportive nature of economically incompetent spouse. Regarding to the nature of the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property, our case law provides a number of positions which lead to some ambiguities However, some problems may arise on the discussion of inheritance of such right in both practice and theory, if a majority opinion and the court include the supportive nature as one of the elements of the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property. Our theories, by and large, have tendencies to accept inheritance in cases of a rightful person passing away before receiving the property, if either parties had agreed to divide the property or the court had determined the practical amount of such division. However, although we approve the right of inheritance in these cases, if we understand such right as not only eliminative but supportive, the value of property has to be distinguished into two natures at least. Moreover, our precedents do not make such distinction. In other words, without considering the two elements, the court only divides the property as a whole or individually according to its types in a fine ratio. Thus, it is necessary for a court to distinguish the amount in each element when the court decides that the right contains the nature of maintenance. If not, a rightful person is dead or presumed dead after the concrete scope of division property has been set up, it may be difficult to resolve the problem of inheritance. In my view, it is theoretically and practically difficult to clarify the legal nature of the right of claim for the division of matrimonial property and to determine the clear amount of such division. Hence, to relieve this situation, it is more appropriate to understand such right as the liquidation of matrimonial-property relation excluding the element of maintenance. Moreover a right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of its exercise is deferent from a right which is strictly personal to the obligor in terms of possession and the exercise of the former should not affect in its inheritance.

중국 혼인법상 부부재산관계 -부부재산제와 이혼시 재산분할을 중심으로-

우병창 ( Byoung Chang Woo ) 안암법학회 2012 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.37

Regarding the problems of the division of matrimonial property on divorce, the couples` rights and interests are protected under the Chinese Family Law. But it is should be required to identil5` the specific property, which is the community property, in question on the revised law. In a concrete case of the division of property, they follow the Supreme People`s Court`s ruling. When couples divorce, the community property that should be dealt with by mutual consent according to some principles, the equality of the sexes, the consideration to the interests of children and women, the profitable principle for the life and demand, the regard to one party who has no negligence, and the principle which has no damages to the interests of the country, organization, and others. If the agreement is failed, the people`s court should confirm the scope of the community property on the basis of the concrete circumstances. The community property is divided equally, when marital property contract is not made either verbally or in writing. It is division in kind and cash, and the price compensation that the specific measures for the division of property. In case of the division of the community property, the people`s court should mediate between two parties in accordance with an agreement between both spouses. Furthermore, the mediation should be legal and complied with the principle of a voluntary approach. If the mediation is invalidated, the court will give a verdict according to the circumstances, which is about the conditions of the community property, the length of a marriage, the actual demands of production and real life, the source of property and so on. However, the several property, husband and wife own each one`s special property individually that has been owned, inherited, and given, also the things are prepared before marriage, and that is acquired during marriage in the name of each one. Also the each spouse`s clothes, household items and general tools and materials, which is purchased cooperatively during marriage, these are belonged to each one`s special property. And the personal property, which is agreed to one`s ownership between both sides before the marriage or during the marriage, it belongs to each one`s property when the agreement is legal according to that agreement. About discharge an obligation, the community debt may be acquired to be paid cooperatively, if the community property is short of reimbursement or the property is belonged to each one`s ownership, it will be paid by agreement of both spouses. On the other hand, personal debt, according to the laws in 1980, each spouse`s debt is paid by the person who is responsible for the debt itself but the revised law in 2001 is repealed this provision, however the consequence are the same.

북한 형법에 나타난 개인재산 침해범죄의 특징

서보학(Suh, Bo-Hack) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2015 東亞法學 Vol.- No.66

국가사회전체의 공동소유를 중시하는 북한도 부분적으로 공민의 개인소유를 인정하고 있으며 공민의 개인재산과 소유권을 보호하는 재산죄 규정을 형법에 명시해 놓고 있다. 다만 특이한 점은 국가재산을 침해하는 범죄와 개인재산을 침해하는 범죄를 각각 따로 규정해 놓고 있다는 점이다. 북한 형법에 규정된 재산범죄규정들은 한국 형법의 재산범죄규정에 비해 그 내용과 입법기술면에서 아직 단순성과 소박성을 벗어나지 못하고 있다. 그러나 동 규정들이 사회주의경제체제하에 놓여 있는 북한 공민들의 기본적인 개인재산을 보호하는데 당장 큰 흠결을 보이고 있는 것으로 판단되지는 않는다. 최근 음성적으로 북한에 시장경제가 형성되고 있고 개인재산의 축재현상이 나타나고 있다고 할지라도 북한 공민들의 경제생활이 자본주의시장경제에 기반한 대한민국의 복잡다단한 경제생활 및 재산체계와 비교할 수는 없기 때문이다. 게다가 북한에서는 형사법규범에 대한 엄격한 해석요구가 한국만큼 엄격하게 지켜지지 않고 있기 때문에 변화하는 경제현실과 형사법규범 사이의 괴리는 유추해석에 가까운 확장해석 및 당의 사상·정책을 앞세운 목적론적 해석방법에 의해 충분히 메워질 것으로 예상된다. 이런 점에서 아직 북한은 법이 지배하는 사회, 즉 법치국가로 진입해 있다고 평가하기는 어려울 것이다. 법이 앞서가는 생활현실을 뒤쫓아 가고 법의 내용은 현실을 반영하여 채워진다는 점에서 앞으로 북한 형법의 재산범죄규정들도 향후 북한 경제체계의 변화와 연동되어 점진적인 변화 및 진화를 계속할 것으로 예상된다. Though North Korea adheres to the principle of co-ownership of the whole national and societal property, it partly acknowledges personal property rights of citizens and expresses the crimes against personal property rights clearly to protect personal property and ownership. Interestingly, it distinguishes the crimes of infringing national property and personal property. The regulations related to the violation of property rights in North Korean criminal law are still simple and naive in their contents and legal descriptions compared to South Korean counterparts. However, those regulations don’t seem to fall short of their immediate aims of protecting personal property rights of North Koreans under the socialist economy. Despite the black markets and individuals beginning to possess personal property in North Korea, their economic life cannot be compared to South Korean economic life operated in much more complex ways. In addition, the regulations which are not strictly enforced would create a gap between changing economic realities and regulations, which is supposed to be filled by expanded application and teleological interpretation of the law to support the communist party’s ideology and policies. In this respect, North Korea cannot be called a constitutional society, that is, a law-governed country. Considering the fact that law follows realities and the contents of laws are filled in reflecting the realities afterwards, regulations about crimes violating personal property rights are expected to undergo gradual changes and evolutions along with the North Korean economy.

발달장애인 대상 공공부조 지원의 효과성 제고를 위한 재산관리 지원서비스 도입의 필요성

제철웅 ( Cheolung Je ),박지혜 ( Jihae Park ),김원경 ( Wonkyung Kim ),주혜림 ( Hae Rim Joo ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.37 No.4

장애인권리협약 발효 이후 발달장애인의 탈시설, 지역사회 통합이 중요한 국가 정책목표의 하나로 되고 있다. 발달장애인이 지역사회에서 생활하기 위해서는 주거, 활동보조만이 아니라, 사회생활에서 직면하는 다양한 사회적 장벽을 헤쳐 나갈 수 있는 지원이 있어야 한다. 그 지원은 동 협약 제12조의 의사결정지원이어야 할 것이다. 이런 관점에서 보면, 발달장애인이 직면한 사회적 장애인 재산관리의 취약성을 극복하고 지역사회에서 생활하기 위해서는 발달장애인의 재산관리를 지원하는 별도의 서비스가 정당한 편의제공으로 있어야만 할 것이다. 그 서비스는 발달장애인을 대신하여 재산을 관리하는 것이 아니라, 발달장애인이 보유한 재산을 안전하게 관리하면서 더 효과적으로 사용할 수 있도록 지원하는 서비스여야 할 것이다. 이런 문제의식 하에 이 논문은 의사결정대행제도로 이미 비판을 받고 있는 후견제도만이 아니라 기존의 대리수령제도, 계좌관리인제도의 현황을 조사하였다. 기존의 제도가 발달장애인의 재산을 안전하게 관리해서 효과적으로 사용될 수 있게 하는 데에는 한계가 있다는 점을 확인한 후, 이를 극복하기 위해서는 발달장애인 재산관리 지원서비스를 제도화시킬 수 있는 방안을 제안하였다. 발달장애인 재산관리 지원서비스는 특히 공공부조 수급자인 발달장애인을 위해(거기에 한정되지는 않지만) 그의 재산을 효과적으로 활용할 수 있도록 설계되어야 한다고 제안한다. 이를 위해 발달장애인 또는 그 부모의 재산을 이전받아 이를 집합시켜 관리함으로써 재산관리의 효율성을 높이고, 관리재산을 발달장애인의 개인적 필요와 욕구에 맞게 효과적으로 사용할 수 있도록 지원하는 것이어야 한다고 제안한다. 그 목적을 달성하기 위해 이 논문은 발달장애인 권리보장 및 지원에 관한 법률 제3장에 관련 법률규정을 입법을 할 것을 제안하고 있다. This paper aims at proposing enactment of support services of property management by persons with developmental disabilities to enhance the effectiveness of public benefit programs. In order to design an effective support services for property management by persons with developmental disabilities, this paper conducted surveys and interviews presenting the current status of their property management, focused on public benefit. Specifically, we surveyed people with developmental disabilities living in both disability institutions and local communities. Then this paper studied the policies of developed countries, specifically the U.S. and Japan, that support the property management by persons with disabilities in similar situation. This paper found that, compared to U.S. and Japan policies, there are representative payees system and “guardianship system” in Korea, which prioritize keeping the property of persons with developmental disabilities safe rather than actively using their property. This paper argues that a convenient property management policy, which focuses on supporting persons with developmental disabilities in making autonomous decisions safely and effectively rather than on keeping their property safe on their behalf. In order to ensure the self-determination of persons with developmental disabilities, this paper suggests that the property of persons with developmental disabilities or their parents should be transferred to property management support services so as to manage their property and support them to effectively use managed property according to their individual needs and desires. Effective use, in this case, suggests that the collectively managed funds perform the same function as consumer cooperative and provide items and services for people with developmental disabilities at an affordable price. In order to implement the suggested property management support services, this paper suggests that the cooperation of several entities including the Ministry of Health and Welfare, a trustee institution, regional support organizations, and individual social workers and other supp orters of people with developmental disabilities should be ensured. For this purpose, this paper makes a legislation proposal

배임죄 성립에 있어 동산과 부동산 사이의 차이문제

손동권(Son, Dong-Kwun) 한국형사법학회 2013 刑事法硏究 Vol.25 No.4

On 20. January 2011, Korean Supreme Court gave a decision that double sale of personal property is not guilty of breach of trust in Article 355 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code(2008Do10479). This decision in the case of movable property is different from the precedents of double sale cases of real property. Personal property is generally considered private property that is movable – any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings. According to the § 355 (2) of Criminal Code, a person who, administering another's affairs, obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to do so from another in violation of ones duty, thereby causes loss to such person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifteen million won. The majority opinion in the judgment states that the delivery obligation of seller is not another’s affairs which shall be administrated by the seller under article 355 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, but is his own affairs. It is a very difficult matter how to interpret the meaning of “a person administering another's affairs" in the article 355 paragraph 2. This matter is caused by the reason that Korea takes the formality principle in transfer of ownership both in the real and movable property. For example, a person who registers first get the ownership, not the one who contracts first, in the real property. There are a lot of disputes about the decision of Supreme Court that made a difference between movable and real property. On 25. June 2004, Korean Supreme Court gave another decision that sale of movable property, which is an object of double establishment of security by means of transfer, is also not guilty of breach of trust in Article 355 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code(2004Do1751). It is same in this case that the debtor is not "a person administering another's affairs," namely affairs of the second right holder in double establishment of security by means of transfer, in the article 355 paragraph 2. This study has critical position about the two decisions of Supreme Court mentioned before. Double sale of movable property should be ruled with breach of trust in the same way as in the real property. The seller of movable property for double establishment of security by means of transfer should take responsibility for breach of trust to the second right holder in the same way as to the first right holder.

집합동산양도의 새로운 공시제도 도입에 관한 연구

김인유 한국민사법학회 2006 民事法學 Vol.31 No.-

A Study on the New Notification System in Transfer of Inventory― With a focus on the Personal Property Registration system in Japan ― The purpose of this study is to examine the new Act of Registration on Personal Property Transfer in Japan(2004.12.1) and is to propose the necessity of registration system on transfer of inventory as notification system in Korea. In the Korean society, real estate traditionally has higher property value than personal property, and has clear notification system that it was clear who owns the title to the secured property. so real estate has mainly been used as the security. but personal property hasn't clear notification system owns the title to the secured property. by the way, recently, there is a need of setting the security by using the inventory as well as financial procurement by using them. In case of Japan, the new Act of Registration on Personal Property was enacted in the year 2004. so under the new Act of Japan, people doing secured transaction can choose the way of notification method between registration on new Act and notification on Civil Law. I think that the new Act of Japan is suitable for korea. Therefore, I prudently suggest that the new notification method on transfer of inventory, as the way of overcome the problem with the general principle of notification under the Civil Law, should adopted at our law. If the new registration system should adopted, it would help for our small and medium industry that in setting the security or financial procurement by using the inventory

정보주체의 권리 실효성 확보를 위한 법적 검토 : 개인정보에 대한 소유권 인정을 중심으로

김현경 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2022 法學論集 Vol.26 No.3

현행법상 정보주체의 권리의 근간은 인격권으로서 개인정보자기결정권이다. 그러나 현재의 개인정보 처리환경은 이러한 인격권에 그치지 않고 개인정보의 경제적 가치의 적극적 활용이 이루어지고 있다. 정보기술의 발전과 개인정보의 처리가 정보주체에게 미치는 영향을 고려해 볼 때 정보주체의 권리의 보장 단계는 다음과 같이 세 단계로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 사생활 보호권 중심의 방어적 권리 단계, 다음으로 정보주체의 결정권을 보장하기 위한 참여적 권리 단계, 그리고 참여적 권리를 넘어 적극적 사용ㆍ수익권의 보장 단계라고 할 수 있다. 현재의 정보주체의 권리 단계는 2단계 즉 개인정보 처리에 있어서 ‘참여적 권리’를 보장하는 단계이나, 개인정보에 대한 소유권 (ownership) 논의, 정보주체의 경제적 가치 실현 필요성 등 3단계 권리에 대한 수요가 증대하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 환경에 부합하게 정보주체의 권리 실행이 적절히 이루어지고 있는지는 의문이다. 우리의 개인정보 보호법제에서 정보주체의 권리는 오직 정보주체의 ‘사전 동의권’에 치중됨으로서 그 외의 권리의 실질화 방안이나 정보주체의 수익 추구 의지를 반영한 권리 등에 대하여는 여전히 미온적이기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 2단계 수준의 현행법상 정보주체의 권리의 한계를 모색하고, 개인정보에 대한 적극적ㆍ배타적 재산권 즉 개인정보의 소유권을 인정하는 것이 타당한지 검토하였다. 우선 재산권 이론에 비추어 볼 때 개인정보에 대한 소유권 창설은 개인정보를 재산으로 취급 할 경우 개인정보의 ‘통제’, ‘보호’, ‘가치측정’, ‘귀속주체’ 등에 있어서 한계가 있다. 따라서 참여적 권리를 현실화하고 적극적 재산권에 이르지 못하더라고 재산적 가치를 활용할 수 있는 제도적 방안이 모색될 필요가 있다. 참여적 권리의 실행을 지원하는 방안으로 개인정보처리자의 정보프라이버시 보호역량 향상과 정보주체의 권리 실질화를 지원하는 서비스나 비즈니스를 독려하는 방안을 제안하였다. 그리고 개인정보의 재산적 가치 관리를 제도화하는 방안으로서 현재 개인정보 보호법 개정안에 도입 예정인 개인정보 관리전문기관(마이데이터)의 활용방안, ‘개인정보 유사 신탁관리업’의 도입을 제안하였다. The basis of the rights of information subjects under the current law is the right to self-determination of personal information as a personal right. However, the current personal information processing environment is not limited to these personal rights, and the economic value of personal information is actively utilized. Considering the development of information technology and the effect of the processing of personal information on the data subject, the stage of guaranteeing the rights of the data subject can be divided into three stages as follows. It can be said to be the stage of defensive rights centered on the right to privacy, the stage of participatory rights to guarantee the decision-making rights of information subjects, and the stage of guaranteeing active use and profit rights beyond participatory rights. The current level of rights of data subjects is the second stage, that is, the stage of guaranteeing ‘participatory rights’ in the processing of personal information. The basis of the rights of information subjects under the current law is the right to self-determination of personal information as a personal right. However, the current personal information processing environment is not limited to these personal rights, and the economic value of personal information is actively utilized. Considering the development of information technology and the effect of the processing of personal information on the data subject, the stage of guaranteeing the rights of the data subject can be divided into three stages as follows. It can be said to be the stage of defensive rights centered on the right to privacy, the stage of participatory rights to guarantee the decision-making rights of information subjects, and the stage of guaranteeing active use and profit rights beyond participatory rights. The current level of rights of data subjects is the second stage, that is, the stage of guaranteeing ‘participatory rights’ in the processing of personal information. However, there is an increasing demand for three-level rights, such as the discussion of ownership of personal information and the need to realize the economic value of the data subject. However, it is questionable whether the data subject’s rights are being properly exercised in accordance with this environment. This is because the rights of data subjects in our personal information protection law system are focused only on the ‘right to consent’ of the data subjects, so they are still lukewarm about the ways to materialize other rights or the rights that reflect the data subjects’ will to pursue profits. Therefore, in this study, the limits of the rights of information subjects under the current law at the second level are explored, and whether it is possible to recognize active and exclusive property rights over personal information, that is, whether it is appropriate to recognize ownership of personal information, is reviewed. First of all, in view of the theory of property rights, the creation of ownership of personal information has limitations in ‘control’, ‘protection’, ‘value measurement’, and ‘subject to property’ of personal information when personal information is treated as property. Therefore, it is necessary to find an institutional way to realize the participatory right and utilize property values even if it does not reach active property rights. As a way to support the implementation of participatory rights, it is proposed to encourage services or businesses that support the improvement of the information privacy protection capacity of personal information controllers and the realization of the rights of data subjects. In addition, as a way to institutionalize the management of the property value of personal information, it was proposed to use the personal information management agency (My Data), which is currently scheduled to be introduced in the amendment of the Personal Information Protection Act, and to introduce the ‘trust-like personal information management business’.