연구논문 : 독일저작권법상 불행사로 인한 저작물이용권의 철회

( Hyo Jil Ahn ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.4

It is permitted that an author has the right of revocation in Article 41 of the German Copyright Act for the non-exercising of exploitation right. Logically, right of revocation based on non-exercise may apply only to an exclusive exploitation right. In the case of the exclusive right of publication (including online publication) and publication right (only for paper publication) in Korea, the owner of these rights stands under legal obligation for publishing according to Article 58 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. If he violates the obligation, the owner of the author’s property rights may notify him of the termination of his exclusive right of publication under Article 60 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. Therefore, the necessity to introduce the Right of Revocation applied only to the right of exclusive publication and the right of publication is not considered seriously. However, in contracting for establishing exclusive right of publication, we will need to introduce the right of revocation prescribed in Article 41 of German Copyright Act as long as the contract prescribes only the aspect of the right of publication of the licensee without his obligation to publish. Furthermore, it needs to consider the introduction of the right of revocation in the German Copyright Act, if Korea would introduce in the future the exclusive license system applied to all types of exploitations. Next, granting the right of revocation like the German Copyright Act in Korea, it is should be determined whether the right of revocation may apply to film works (See Article 90 of German Copyright Act). The reason why the German Copyright Act does not permit the right of revocation in cases of non-exercise of copyright film works is to guarantee the use of films that have significant production costs. However, the types of exploitation are too various; a new type of exploitation which has significant costs like the film works will appear in the near future depending on the change of technology or economic conditions. Also in case of the publication as the most general type of exploitation, the publication of art books or music books needs a significant production cost. Therefore, I think, there is a little doubt that exercising the right of revocation should be restricted to only film works. Lastly, there is a problem of who has and exercises the right of revocation. The right of revocation for non-exercise is, in principle, made to protect the author’s moral right to create work which is open to the public. However, if royalties are fixed in proportion to the amount of the exploitation of works, the author can protect his economic profits by exercising the right of revocation. Therefore, if only the economic aspect is emphasized, the right of revocation for non-exercise could be available to not only the author but also the holder of author’s property rights.

독일저작권법상 불행사로 인한 저작물이용권의 철회

안효질 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.4

독일저작권법은 제41조에서 철회권에 대하여 규정하고 있다. 이에 따르면, 배타적이용권자가 그 이용권을 충분히 행사하지 않고 그로 인하여 저작자의 정당한 이익이 상당히 침해된 경우에 저작자가 그 배타적이용권을 철회할 수 있다. 저작자가 제3자에게 배타적이용권을 부여하였음에도 불구하고 그 제3자가 저작물을 이용하지 않으면, 저작자는 자신의 저작물이 일반공중에 공개되어 자신이 그 저작물을 창작하였다는 것을 알리고자 하는 정신적 이익과 저작물이 되도록 광범위하게 이용됨으로써 수익을 얻고자 하는 경제적이익이 침해받는다. 독일저작권법 제41조의 규범취지는 이 경우 저작자에게 철회권을 부여함으로써 저작자가 스스로 또는 다른 제3자를 통하여 그 저작물을 공개 내지 이용할 수 있는 가능성을 제공하고자 함에 있다. 이러한 독일저작권법 제41조의 철회권은 원칙적으로 배타적이용권의 부여 후 2년이 경과하기 전에는 행사할 수 없으며, 철회권의 행사시에는 저작물이용권자에게 적절한 유예기간을 부여하도록 규정하고 있다. 또한 독일저작권법 제41조의 철회권은 그 모권(母權)인 저작권과 마찬가지로 사전에 포기할 수 없는 권리로 법에 명시되어 있으며, 철회권의 행사로 인하여 손실을 본 관련자에 대해서는 저작자가 적절한 보상을 하여야 한다. 한편, 우리 저작권법은 배타적발행권의 소멸통고(제60조)를 규정하고 있는데, 그 인정요건 및 효과에 있어서 독일저작권법상의 철회권과 차이를 나타내고 있다. 이 글에서는 우선 독일저작권법상 철회권의 내용을 상세히 소개한 후(Ⅱ), 우리 저작권법상 소멸통고권과의 차이를 분석한다(Ⅲ). 이를 토대로 결론에서 우리 저작권법상 철회권을 도입할 필요가 있는지 여부에 대한 의견을 제시한다. 이 경우 철회권의 인정이유를 저작자의 인격적 이익뿐만 아니라 경제적인 고려에서도 인정할 필요가 있는지를 검토한다(Ⅳ). It is permitted that an author has the right of revocation in Article 41 of the German Copyright Act for the non-exercising of exploitation right. Logically, rightof revocation based on non-exercise may apply only to an exclusive exploitation right. In the case of the exclusive right of publication (including online publication) and publication right (only for paper publication) in Korea, the owner of these rights stands under legal obligation for publishing according to Article 58 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. If he violates the obligation, theowner of the author’s property rights may notify him of the termination of his exclusive right of publication under Article 60 and Article 63bis of the Korean Copyright Act. Therefore, the necessity to introduce the Right of Revocation applied only to the right of exclusive publication and the right of publication is not considered seriously. However, in contracting for establishing exclusive right of publication, we will need to introduce the right of revocation prescribed in Article 41 of German Copyright Act as long as the contract prescribes only the aspect of the right of publication of the licensee without his obligation to publish. Furthermore, it needs to consider the introduction of the right of revocation in the German Copyright Act, if Korea would introduce in the future the exclusive license system applied to all types of exploitations. Next, granting the right of revocation like the German Copyright Act in Korea, it is should be determined whether the right of revocation may apply to film works (See Article 90 of German Copyright Act). The reason why the German Copyright Act does not permit the right of revocation in cases of non-exercise of copyright film works is to guarantee the use of films that have significant production costs. However, the types of exploitation are too various; a new type of exploitation which has significant costs like the film works will appear in the near future depending on the change of technology or economic conditions. Also in case of the publication as the most general type of exploitation, the publication of art books or music books needs a significant production cost. Therefore, I think, there is a little doubt that exercising the right of revocation should be restricted to only film works. Lastly, there is a problem of who has and exercises the right of revocation. The right of revocation for non-exercise is, in principle, made to protect the author’s moral right to create work which is open to the public. However, if royalties are fixed in proportion to the amount of the exploitation of works, the author can protect his economic profits by exercising the right of revocation. Therefore, if only the economic aspect is emphasized, the right of revocation for non-exercise could be available to not only the author but also the holder of author’s property rights.

獨立有功者 敍勳取消의 法的 爭點

김용섭 한국행정판례연구회 2016 행정판례연구 Vol.21 No.2

This study is a commentary of the Supreme Court’s decision on the issue whether the revocation of decoration for the persons of distinguished service to independence corresponds to the President’s ruling act. In trials of lower courts, the views on this issue were not uniform but controversial. The Supreme Court decided that the revocation of decoration for the persons of distinguished service to independence does not correspond to the President’s ruling act. This study analyzed theories and precedents concerning the President’s ruling act, and further reviewed conferment and revocation of decorations for the persons of distinguished service to independence separately in terms of whether they correspond to the President’s ruling act. The Supreme Court’s decision did not definitely state whether the President’s revocation of decoration for the persons of distinguished service to independence corresponded to withdrawal or ex officio revocation, but judged that the revocation was made after overall review of their contribution to independence and the facts revealed later. It judged that the revocation of decoration for the persons of distinguished service to independence had both meanings of withdrawal and ex officio revocation. Meanwhile, it considered that, although the revocation of decoration had been notified by the Minister of National Veterinary Department, the President had finally decided such revocation and accordingly the President should be the defendant to the revocation litigation. Article 13 of the Administrative Litigation Act prescribes that the disposition agency shall be the defendant to a revocation litigation, but the Act does not stipulate notice of defendant. To require a party to an administrative litigation to put the correct defendant for an appeal may put a burden on the public and increase the inconvenience of the public. Accordingly, the Administrative Litigation Act is required to be amended to change the standing to be sue from the disposition agency to the state or local government. Finally, the Awards and Decorations Act shall also be amended, so that the issue such as revocation of decoration and recovery of orders, etc. may be disputed in administrative litigations, but the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of the National Veterinary Department, not the President, may be the defendant to the litigation. In this case, not only the confusion about standing to be sue may be resolved, but also the legal ground may be established for the question that the revocation of decoration for the persons of distinguished service to independence is not the President’s ruling act. 본 연구는 대통령의 독립유공자 서훈취소가 통치행위에 해당되는지 여부가 문제가 된 대상판결에 대하여 평석을 한 것이다. 하급심에서는 독립유공자 서훈취소가 통치행위에 해당되는지 여부를 둘러싸고 견해가 통일되지않고 논란이 있었다. 대상판결에서는 대통령의 독립유공자 서훈취소가 통치행위라고 볼 수 없다고 판시하였다. 본 연구에서는 통치행위에 대한 이론과판례를 분석하였으며, 대통령의 독립유공자 서훈과 서훈취소를 분리하여 통치행위에 해당하는지 여부에 대하여 고찰하였다. 아울러 대상판결은 대통령의 서훈취소가 철회에 해당하는지 아니면 직권취소에 해당하는지에 대하여 직접적으로 언급하지 않고 있고, 독립유공자서훈 공적과 그 공적이후에 밝혀진 사실을 전체적인 관점에서 판단하여 서훈을 취소한다고 판시하고 있다. 독립유공자 서훈취소는 철회적 성격과 직권취소적 성격을 모두 갖고 있다고 보았다. 한편 대상판결은 설사 서훈취소통보를 국가보훈처장이 하였더라도 서훈취소결정을 한 대통령을 처분청으로보아 대통령을 피고적격이 있는 자로 보았다. 그러나 행정소송법 제13조에따라 처분청을 피고로 하도록 하고 있으나, 피고가 누구인지를 고지하도록명문화하고 있지 않은 행정소송법에서 당사자에게 올바른 피고를 정하여항고소송을 제기하도록 부담을 지우는 것으로 이는 국민의 불편가중을 초래할 위험성이 높다. 따라서 행정소송법을 개정하여 피고적격을 처분청이아니라 행정주체인 국가나 지방자치단체로 변경할 필요가 있다. 끝으로, 상훈법을 개정하여 서훈취소와 훈장 등의 환수 등에 관한 소송은 행정소송을 제기하여 다투되, 대통령 대신에 행정자치부장관이나 국가보훈처장을 피고로 하여 제기하여야 한다는 규정을 입법적으로 마련해 둔다면 피고적격이 누구인지를 둘러싼 혼란을 해소함과 동시에 독립유공자서훈취소가 통치행위가 아니라는 것을 입법적으로 해결할 수 있는 장점이있게 된다고 할 것이다.

채권자취소권에 관한 민법개정안 - 개정안에 관한 기본구상과 민법개정위원회의 논의 과정을 중심으로 -

김재형 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.68 No.-

Proposed Amendments to the Korean Civil Code on the Obligee’sRight of Revocation On the Suggested Basic Framework of the Amendments and RelatedTopics Discussed by the Civil Law Amendment Committee 120)Jae Hyung Kim *In case an obligor prejudices the obligee by transferring his property toa third party, it is the obligee’s “right of revocation” that entitles theobligee to revoke such fraudulent transaction and to claim restitution. Cases involving the obligee’s right of revocation have been on the increasein Korea from the time the country received an IMF bailout loan duringthe 1997 financial crisis. The increase in the number of such revocationlitigations has led to controversy over the requirements of and the effectsof the obligee’s right of revocation. The Korean Civil Code, however, hasonly two simple provisions stipulating the obligee’s right of revocation; andthere are accordingly certain limitations in solving complicated issuesconcerning the obligee’s right of revocation. The Ministry of Justice Civil Code Amendment Committee, establishedin 2009, has marked the completion of its work of five years with theplenary session held in February 2014. The most prominent part of theCommittee’s work is the amendment on the obligee’s right of revocation,which has provided ten provisions in the Civil Code and a single provisionin the Civil Execution Act. This suggests a significant departure from thecurrent system that regulates the obligee’s right of revocation with onlytwo provisions, therefore allowing much room for interpretation in the* Professor, School of Law, Seoul National University. 金載亨 : 채권자취소권에 관한 민법개정안 121stage of the application of the law. Some of the newly introducedprovisions codify the existing theories and precedents, while others departfrom current practices. As a Committee member myself, I was the first person that drafted theamendments on the obligee’s right of revocation. This paper, reflecting myexperience as the drafter, introduces the basic framework of and thedirection of the amendments and further discusses the amendments indetail, including explanations regarding the requirements of the obligee’sright of revocation as well as the effects of exercising the right to abeneficiary or a subsequent purchaser. This paper also aims to introducethe topics that were discussed in the course of drafting and, further, topresent my opinion on these topics. The fundamental function of the obligee’s revocation right is torepudiate a fraudulent transaction and recover the property from thebeneficiary or the subsequent purchaser so as to maintain the obligor’sproperty. Thus, three distinctive values - the need to maintain theobligor’s property for the obligee’s interest, the freedom to dispose of theobligor’s own property, and the need to ensure transaction security – mustbe kept in balance. In one’s assessment of the proposed amendmentsconcerning the obligee’s revocation right, the crucial question to ask wouldbe whether the amendments would realize such balance among thesevalues. More contemplation on and discussions on this issue will surelylead to a better proposal for the amendments.

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.

채권자취소권의 법적 성질과 원상회복청구 문제

오수원 사법발전재단 2019 사법 Vol.1 No.50

On the obligee’s right of revocation, Article 406(1) of the Korean Civil Act stipulates that the obligee may apply to the court for revocation of fraudulent act and restoration of its original status. There is much debate in Korea as to the nature of the obligee’s right of revocation, and depending on how one views it, nature of the action, defendant of the action and the effect of judgement vary. The obligee’s right of revocation is considered as the right to preserve and maintain the joint collateral (executable property) for the obligees’ compulsory execution. In addition to the claim for revocation, the reason why the claim for restoration of original status is deemed necessary is that the property, occupied by or registered in the name of the beneficiary after the revocation of the fraudulent act, cannot be forced into execution unless they are returned to the obligors. Article 424 of the Japanese Civil Code, after which Article 406(1) of the Civil Act is modeled, only prescribed the filing of a claim for revocation of fraudulent acts, and there were various discussions regarding whether the filing of a claim for restoration of the original status could be made after the revocation. The Japanese theories and precedents generally acknowledged the filing of such a claim. At the time of the enactment of the Korean Civil Act, the drafters recognized the revocation of fraudulent acts and restoration of the original status by accepting Japan’s theories and precedents. Originally, Article 424 of the Japanese Civil Code was based on the theory of invalidation under Article 1167 of the French Civil Code before its revision on France’s action paulienne, which means to cancel and nullify fraudulent acts, corresponding to revocation of legal act in Korea. Thus, revocation in Article 406 of the Civil Act should be regarded as stipulating the right to cancel fraudulent acts. As the Korean civil law takes formalism with regard to the change in property rights, the revocation of a fraudulent act, which is a legal act, does not guarantee the recovery of the property right that was previously transferred to the beneficiary to the obligor, but rather, the obligor only has the right to make a claim for the return of unjust enrichment. The obligees, depending on whether the claim for the return of unjust enrichment pertains to immovables, corporeal movables or claims, may request to the court for the issuance of an order of seizure against the transfer of the immovables, corporeal movables, or claims owned by the obligor. And the obligees do not have to request the separate restoration of original status against the obligor by exercising the right of subrogation. Furthermore, Article 406 of the Korean Civil Act provides for restoration of the original status in addition to a claim for revocation. The said Article follows declaration theory on the change of property rights in the Japanese Civil Code, which was applied at the time of the enactment of the Korean Civil Act, prior to the introduction of the compulsory execution procedure against a claim for the transfer of the enriched object. Now that the situation has changed, such a claim for restoration is considered unnecessary. 채권자취소권에 관하여 민법 제406조의 제1항은 채무자가 채권자를 해함을 알고 재산권을 목적으로 한 법률행위를 한 때에는 채권자는 그 취소 및 원상회복을 법원에 청구할 수 있다고 한다. 채권자취소권의 성질이 어떠한가에 관해서는 우리나라에서도 많은 논의가 있고, 이를 어떻게 보는지에 따라 소의 성질, 소의 피고, 판결의 효력 등에 차이를 보이고 있다. 채권자취소권제도는 채권자의 공동담보(책임재산)를 보전·유지하여 채권자의 강제집행이 가능하도록 하는 것을 본질로 하는 권리라고 한다. 채권자취소권에서 사해행위의 취소청구 외에 원상회복청구가 필요하다고 보는 것은 사해행위 취소 후에 사해행위 급부에 따른 물건의 점유나 등기명의가 수익자에게 남아있어 이를 채무자에게 환원하지 않으면 강제집행을 할 수 없다고 보기 때문일 것이다. 민법 제406조 제1항의 원형은 일본 민법 제424조 제1항이고, 후자는 사해행위의 취소만을 법원에 청구할 수 있다고 하였으나, 그 취소 후에 원상회복청구를 할 수 있는지에 관하여 여러 논의가 있었는데, 일본의 이론과 판례는 대체로 이를 인정하였다. 우리 민법 제정 당시 그 초안에서 이를 받아들여 사해행위의 취소 및 원상회복을 청구할 수 있는 것으로 규정한 것이다. 원래 일본 민법 제424조는 프랑스의 채권자취소권에 관한 개정 전 프랑스 민법 제1167조의 무효소권이론을 따른 것으로, 여기에서의 취소는 사해행위를 취소하여 무효화하는 것을 의미하였고, 이는 넓은 뜻의 법률행위의 취소에 해당한다. 그러므로 민법 제406조에서의 취소는, 일본 민법 제424조와 같이, 사해행위를 취소하는 취소권을 규정한 것으로 보아야 한다. 우리 민법이 물권변동에 관하여 형식주의를 취하고 있으므로 법률행위인 사해행위의 취소에 의하여 수익자 등에게 이전된 재산권이 원상회복으로 채무자에게 당연히 복귀하는 것은 아니며 채무자는 부당이득반환청구권을 가질 뿐이다. 채무자의 채권자들은 이러한 부당이득반환청구권이 부동산에 대한 것인지 동산에 대한 것인지, 아니면 채권에 대한 것인지에 따라 부동산이전청구권집행, 동산인도청구권집행, 채권집행 등을 할 수 있고, 채권자대위권을 행사하여 채무자에게 별도로 원상회복청구를 할 필요는 없다. 나아가 민법 제406조에서는 취소청구 외에 별도로 원상회복청구도 규정하고 있는데, 이는 민법 제정 당시 적용되고 있었던 일본 민법상의 채권자취소권 규정이 부동산물권변동에 관한 의사주의하의 입법이며, 부당이득반환청구권으로서의 소유권이전등기청구 등 원물반환청구권에 대한 강제집행제도를 알지 못했기 때문이라고 할 것이므로, 상황이 다른 우리나라에서 이러한 원상회복청구는 불필요한 것이라고 할 것이다.

채권자취소의 효과와 관련한 몇 가지 문제점 - 상대효, 판결의 주관적 범위, 반환의무내용 및 이행상대방 -

태기정 한국민사법학회 2017 民事法學 Vol.80 No.-

Since 2009, the Ministry of Justice in Korea Civil Code Amendment Committee has been making the Draft of Civil Code Amendment, and it is almost close to completion. Especially, the most prominent part of the committee’s work is the amendment on the obligee’s right of revocation. Korean Current Civil Code(hereinbelow “KCC”) only stipulates two articles (KCC Article 406, 407) about the obligee’s right of revocation, which is influenced by that of the Japanese Current Civil Code. And, the majority of the Korean Legal Academy and the Supreme Court has accepted the theory of “Relational Effect of Revocation”, which was inherited from Japan, and had also been influenced by France and German. But, KCC is different in many aspects in relation with the transferring of a real right, Civil Executive Act. Therefore, many law interpretations have been disputed and proposed from the Korean Legal Academy. Meanwhile, on May 2017, Japan Civil Code Amendment on the obligee’s right of revocation was approved by the Congress, and proclaimed on June 2017(the Japanese Revised Civil Law will go in to effect in 3 years according to a enforcement decree). The Japanese Revised Civil Law has changed the legal principle of “Relational Effect of Revocation Theory”. That is, the effect of revocation judgement is implicit to all creditors including obligor. The obligee’s revocation right articles of KCC(including those of KCC Amendment) have many difficult problems in the interpretation and application to cases. In this article, I concentrated on the study about the effect of revocation, various positive and negative aspects in the KCC Amendment, including the type of lawsuit, effects of judgement in comparison with the Civil Procedure Code, and the Civil Executive Act. In conclusion, Relational Effect of Revocation Theory can’t be in harmony with KCC, because of the differences with other countries’ legal systems and civil codes, including Japan. The effect of revocation judgement should be expanded to obligee and another creditors, who know the pendency of the revocation suit, which has been litigated before by one creditor. The expansion of revocation judgement effect is advantage to the other creditors, because they can participate in the revocation suit as plaintiffs during the pendency of the lawsuit. If the other creditors didn’t know that the revocation lawsuit was litigated and completed, they can sue a revocation litigation again. The expansion of revocation lawsuit judgement effect, in certain condition, doesn’t infringe the other creditors’ right to sue another revocation litigation. And, the range of restitution duty should be constrained on an exchange value(That is to say, an use value should not be included). Additionally, I suggested a new legal theory of interpretation and legislation, which did not exist before, that is different from other countries’ legal interpretations and codes. 법무부민법개정위원회는 2009년부터 최근까지 민법 전반에 관한 개정작업을 진행해왔고, 개정안이 거의 완성되었다. 민법재산법 중 가장 주목할 만한 부분으로 채권자취소권규정에 대한 개정시안을 들 수 있다. 현행 민법은 채권자취소권에 관하여 단 두 개의 조문을 두고 있을 뿐인데(민법 제406조 및 제407조), 이는 일본민법을 계수한 것이다. 그리고 채권자취소의 효과에 대하여 우리나라의 다수설과 판례는 취소채권자와 수익자사이에서만 취소의 효력이 미치고 그 이외의 관계에서는 영향이 없다는 상대적 효력설을 현재까지도 취해오고 있는데, 이는 일본의 해석론을 수용한 것이고, 일본 또한 프랑스와 독일의 법리를 수용한 것이다. 그러나 현행 민사법체계는 성립요건주의를 전제로 하는 물권변동법리, 강제집행에서의 평등주의, 채권자취소권행사의 효과로 책임재산이 채무자명의로 복귀하는지 등 여러 가지 면에서 일본, 독일, 프랑스와 다른 체계를 가지고 있으므로 상대적 효력설과는 어울리지 않는다. 이러한 이유로 여러 가지 해석론이 제시되어왔고, 논란이 있었다. 한편 일본의 경우 2006. 10.부터 채권자취소권규정에 대하여 개정작업이 이루어져왔는데, 절대적 효력설, 채무자에 대한 의무적 소송고지, 판결효력의 확장 등을 골자로 하는 개정안이 2017. 5. 26. 최종적으로 국회를 통과되어 개정법률로 성립하였고, 2017. 6. 2. 공포되었으며, 공포일로부터 3년 이내로서 시행령이 정하는 날부터 효력을 발생하게 되었다. 채권자취소권의 경우 요건, 효과, 판결효력, 소송형태 및 다른 채권자들의 참가, 채권집행 등 난해한 부분이 많다. 본 논문에서는 그 중 채권자취소의 효력부분을 중심으로 상대적 효력설의 타당성, 판결효력의 확장해석, 원상회복의무의 내용과 이행상대방 등의 쟁점에 대하여, 현행 민사소송법리 및 민사집행법리 와의 비교를 통하여 연구하였고, 채권자취소권규정에 대한 개정시안에 대한 예상되는 장점과 단점들에 대하여 검토하였다. 결론적으로 상대적 효력설은 현행 민사법 체계와 조화되기 어렵고, 채권자취소권행사의 효과로서 반환범위는 제한될 필요가 있다. 그리고 민사소송법 및 민사집행법과의 균형을 고려하여 일정한 요건과 범위에서 판결효력의 확장을 인정하고 다른 채권자들의 소송참가를 적극 허용해야 하며, 채권집행절차를 허용하는 것도 가능하다는 등의 이전에 없었던 새로운 입법론과 해석론을 제시하였다.

부관에 대한 행정소송의 형식과 문제점

김철우 법제처 2022 법제 Vol.698 No.-

This study has been examined from a critical standpoint the forms of administrative litigation for illegal additional clause that has been thus far discussed theoretically. Traditionally, the administrative law approach to additional clause was carried out according to three methods: ① whether to separate the additional clause from the profitable administrative act and designating it as the subject of litigation; ② under what litigation form is the subject realized; ③ under what standards in the litigation can the law court separate the additional clause from the main administrative act and announce the revocation of the additional clause alone. Although the main administrative act is profitable to the opposite party, if the additional clause has an invasive character, an effective remedy through the elimination of the additional clause can be searched for. However, additional clause excluding the burden can only be regarded as part of the administrative acts with additional clause, and this leads to the problem where the additional clause alone cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition that is the subject of a revocation litigation, and to this, theory tries to overcome the problem with the litigation of impure partial revocation. However, the litigation of impure partial revocation looks very much like the litigation of pure partial revocation, making distinguishing difficult. The plaintiff to the litigation of impure partial revocation is arguing that only the unlawful additional clause is illegal and seeks its revocation, but conceptually, the entire administrative act with the additional clause is viewed as the subject of the litigation, placing it in contradiction to the theory on the object of lawsuit of traditional revocation litigation. Also, according to the Supreme Court’s precedent on the object of the lawsuit for revocation litigation, the revocation of the additional clause alone, which is inextricably linked to the administrative disposition, cannot be recognized in a lawsuit. Therefore, litigation of impure partial revocation cannot be viewed as an effective means of remedy. Instead, if an illegal additional clause is added to the administrative disposition, it would be more rational if the people applied for changes for administrative disposition in which there are no additional clause, or there are changes to the content of the additional clause, and if the administrative agency rejects the changes, to propose a litigation for revocation regarding the disposition of refusal.

채권자취소권과 부인권이 상호 교차하는 경우에 관한 규율 - 취소채권자에 대한 부인권 행사를 중심으로

임선지 사법발전재단 2023 사법 Vol.1 No.63

A creditor’s right of revocation and avoidance power have their common roots in Roman legal doctrine of actio pauliana, and they serve almost the same purpose which is to recover the assets fraudulently transferred or concealed by the debtor to secure a joint security for the benefit of all creditors. Meanwhile, different issues can be raised in a case where a trustee in a bankruptcy process tries to exercise her avoidance right against a creditor, who successfully revoked a fraudulent transfer between the debtor and a transferee and restored the previously transferred asset, consequently collecting her own claim before declaration of bankruptcy, and the trustee argues to deny the realization of a claim by the foregoing creditor who exercised the right of revocation against the debtor’s fraudulent transfers. This article aims to delve into proper solutions in cases where the right of revocation and the avoidance power are exercised to contradict and mutually negate each other, by examining the Korean Civil Act in the light of comparative legal studies of foreign jurisdictions and de lege ferenda. First of all, according to the relative effect theory adopted by Korean court rulings and legal academia regarding the effect of a creditor’s revocation on a debtor, the restored asset remains as the transferee’s own property despite the transfer of the registered title from the transferee to the debtor by means of restoration (thus a discrepancy happens between the nominal title and the substantial ownership). This leads to the fact that the restored asset does not constitute the debtor’s executable property responsible for her creditors in general, that the creditor’s collection can not be evaluated as a harmful transaction diminishing the value of the debtor’s executable property, and that the trustee may not challenge the creditor’s collection as a transaction subject to the exercise of the avoidance power. In Germany, France, and Anglo jurisdictions, the ownership title is not restored to the debtor even if a creditor exercises her revocation right. On the other hand, the 2017 amendment of the Japanese Civil Code accepted the absolute effect theory and discarded the relative effect theory that was built over a long time through court rulings and legal practices. This is unprecedented legislation from the perspective of comparative law and thus needs to be prudently examined to see if there will be any unexpected complications or legal instabilities. Further, Korean court rulings and legal academia interpret that the scope of creditors who are affected by creditor’s revocation and thus can claim their rights to distribution from the restored asset in civil execution procedures provided in Article 407 of the Civil Act are confined only to such creditors who had previously acquired their claims before the revoked fraudulent transfer. This interpretation can also make the revoking creditor’s collection from the restored asset unavoidable in the following bankruptcy process, because creditors who are afforded protection of Article 407 are not creditors in general that constitute total creditors protected by the equitable doctrine in bankruptcy process. In Germany, France, and the Anglo jurisdictions, a creditor’s revocation does not affect other creditors unless those creditors do not successfully exercise their own revocation rights. In order to allow creditor’s revocation to accomplish its own roles separated from trustee’s avoidance, it is not desirable for the trustee to be vested with the overwhelming avoidance powers to cancel the effect of the creditor’s previous revocation. 채권자취소권과 부인권은 채무자의 사해행위로 일탈된 재산을 회복하여 총 채권자의 이익을 위한 공동담보를 확보한다는 공통된 목적에서 출발하였다. 그런데 도산절차 밖에서 취소채권자가 수익자 등을 상대로 사해행위취소 및 원상회복청구의 소를 제기하여 승소확정판결을 받고, 사해행위로 일탈되었던 책임재산을 수익자 등으로부터 회복한 후 그 재산에서 자신의 피보전채권을 만족시킨 경우 그 이후에 개시된 채무자에 대한 도산절차에서 관리인 등이 위와 같은 취소채권자의 채권실현행위를 부인할 수 있는지 여부가 문제 된다. 위와 같이 채권자취소권과 부인권이 상호 대립하는 방향으로 교차하는 경우를 어떻게 규율할 것인가에 관하여는 채권자취소권과 부인권의 성격이나 역할, 상호관계 등을 보는 관점에 따라 상반된 검토가 가능하다. 이 글에서는, 부인권 행사 여부가 문제 되는 취소채권자의 행위는 원상회복행위 그 자체라기보다는 그 후 회복된 재산을 재원으로 한 피보전채권의 실현행위이고, 구체적으로는 회복된 재산에 대한 채권실현 방법에 따라 집행절차를 통한 배당금수령행위 또는 수령한 금전에 의한 피보전채권 충당행위로 특정하였다. 먼저 사해행위취소의 채무자에 대한 효력에 관하여 우리나라의 통설·판례가 취하고 있는 상대적 효력설에 의하면, 사해행위취소판결로 회복된 재산은 취소채권자 및 민법 제407조에 의하여 채권자취소의 효력을 받는 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 채무자의 책임재산으로 취급될 뿐 채무자가 직접 그 재산에 대하여 어떠한 실체적 권리를 취득하는 것은 아니며, 채권자취소로 인한 원상회복의 결과 등기나 등록을 요하는 재산이 채무자 명의로 회복되더라도 그 재산은 여전히 수익자의 소유로서, 다만 취소채권자 등의 강제집행을 당할 수 있는 부담을 지는 데 불과하다. 이에 따르면, 취소채권자가 회복된 재산에서 강제집행절차에 의하거나 또는 수령한 금전으로 바로 피보전채권을 만족시키는 행위를 하였더라도 이와 같은 배당금수령행위나 피보전채권 충당행위는 채무자 소유가 아니었던 재산을 재원으로 한 것이어서 사해행위 또는 편파행위 등 부인대상행위가 되기 위한 공통적 요건으로 유해성을 구비하였다고 보기 어렵다. 우리나라의 사해행위취소제도에 많은 영향을 주었던 독일, 프랑스, 미국에서는 사해행위취소청구가 인용되더라도 일탈재산이 채무자의 재산으로 복귀되지 않으며 여전히 수익자 명의로 남겨둔 채 취소채권자가 마치 채무자의 책임재산인 것처럼 취급하여 강제집행을 할 권한을 가지게 될 뿐인데, 이와 같은 비교법적 검토 역시 중요한 참고가 될 수 있다. 다만 일본의 2017년 개정 민법은 종래 판례를 통해 구축되어 온 상대적 효력설을 폐기하고 사해행위취소의 효력이 채무자에게도 미친다는 절대적 효력설을 채택하였는데, 이는 비교법적으로 유례를 찾기 어려울 뿐 아니라 로마법의 파울루스 소권에서 출발하여 도산절차상 부인권과 분화되어 발전해 온 채권자취소권의 본질과도 정합되지 않으며 오랜 시간을 두고 정착되어 온 법리를 입법의 방식으로 변경하는 것이어서 새로운 혼란을 초래하거나 법적 안정성을 해칠 우려도 배제하기 어려우므로, 이와 같은 방향의 민법 개정에 대하여는 신중하게 접근할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 나아가 사해행위취소의 효력이 미치는 채권자의 범위에 관하여 우 ...

사해행위취소소송에서 피보전권리의 발생시기 -민법 제839조의3 신설 이후 판례를 중심으로-

허영무 ( Young Moo Huh ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2010 홍익법학 Vol.11 No.3

이혼한 배우자가 재산분할청구권에 관한 채무명의를 얻었다 하더라도(예컨대, 재산분할 및 위자료에 관한 집행력 있는 판결, 화해조서, 조정조서 등) 재산분할을 해야 할 일방이 그 재산을 처분하여 분할할 재산이 없게 된 때에는 재산분할청구권은 실제로 실효성이 없게 된다. 이러한 경우, 재산도피 이후에 성립한 재산분할청구권을 피보전권리로 하여 채권자취소권을 행사할 수 있는가 하는 문제가 생긴다. 다행히도 우리민법은 최근 2007년 12월 21일 법률 제8720호로 개정된 민법에서 제839조의3을 신설하여 재산분할청구권 보전을 위한 사해행위취소권을 새롭게 도입하였다. 이 규정에 의하면, 부부 일방이 다른 일방의 재산분할청구권 행사를 해함을 알면서도 재산권을 목적으로 하는 법률행위를 한 때에는 사해행위취소권을 행사함으로써 분할의 대상이 되는 재산의 원상회복을 도모할 수 있게 되었다. 위 규정의 입법취지는 재산분할청구권 성립시기와 관계없이 명의를 가진 배우자가 분할대상재산을 몰래 처분한 경우 포괄적으로 사해행위를 인정하여 그 취소권을 행사할 수 있도록 상대적으로 명의를 갖지 못한 배우자의 권리를 보호한다는 취지에서 도입한 것으로 보인다. 그러나 신설조항이 민법 제406조 제1항을 준용하여 행사하도록 규정하고 있어 종래의 문제점을 완전히 극복하지는 못한 것으로 보여 분할대상 재산을 몰래 처분한 후에 성립한 재산분할청구권의 피보전채권성 여부에 관하여는 여전히 해석에 의존할 수밖에 없어 구체적이고 객관적인 기준 마련이 시급하다. 따라서 이 글에서는 주로 하급심 판례를 중심으로(아직 대법원 판례가 없다) 재산분할청구권이 성립하기 전에 일방배우자가 몰래 분할대상재산을 처분하고 난 이후에 뒤늦게 성립한 재산분할청구권이 제839조의3에서 규정한 피보전채권으로 적격을 갖는지 여부에 관하여 살펴보았다. 특히 재산분할청구의 소제기 전에 분할대상 재산을 몰래 처분한 경우는 물론 소제기 이후에 처분한 경우에도 재산분할청구권에 기한 채권자취소권이 인정될 것인지 여부까지 검토하였다. 채권자취소권에 있어서의 피보전채권은 사해행위라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 행하여지기 전에 발생된 것임을 요한다고 하는 일반원칙은 일단 원칙론으로서는 정당하다. 하지만 위 원칙은 모든 경우에 적용되는 보편타당한 원칙은 아니라는 점에 주의하여야 한다. 필자는 구체적인 사안에 따라 채권이 성립하기 전에도 채권자를 위하여 채무자의 책임재산을 보전할 필요가 있는 경우가 있을 수 있고, 채무자의 입장에서도 구체적인 채권의 성립 전에도 채권자를 해한다는 인식이 있을 수 있기 때문에 사해행위 이후에 성립한 채권에 대하여도 예외적으로 피보전권리성을 인정해야 할 필요성이 있다는 점을 밝혔고, 하급심의 실무에서도 같은 견해를 취하고 있는 것으로 보여 다행스럽게 생각한다. 앞으로 대법원의 판례도 기대된다. This survey reviewed whether the wife, who has the right of division of property on divorce, can exercise the right of revocation based on the obligee`s right of revocation under the Korean Civil Code Article 839-3 in regard to the property which the husband disposed of without his wife`s consent. The Korean Civil Code Article 839-2 provides the claim of division of property obtained by the common efforts of both spouses during marriage under the name of the husband. According to the Korean Civil Code Article 830, the property under the name of the husband is regarded as his specific property. As a result of this, he can independently dispose of this property without his wife`s consent. Therefore, if the husband independently disposed of the property obtained by cooperation of both spouses during marriage, there may not be any property for the wife to claim on divorce. In this paper, I made a study of the means for wife to exercise the claim of division of property. Accordingly, I suggested two solutions to these problems, which are unfavourable to women in the notion of the impartial division of the property acquired during the marriage by both spouses. First, it is necessary that the wife can exercise the obligee`s right of revocation under the Korean Civil Code Article 839-3 in regard to the property which the husband disposed of without his wife`s consent. Second, we should construe the specific property on Article 830 as the property in co-ownership regardless of the name of the property. By this construction, the wife can exercise the right of revocation against the subsequent purchaser who acquired the property in co-ownership from the husband who disposed of it. With regard to this construction, I introduce the legislative instances of foreign country and present the theoretical basis. In principle, it is necessary that the right of the obligee should be brought into existence prior to the legal act which prejudice the property right of the obligee for the obligee to exercise the obligee`s right of revocation. Court decisions, however, have recently recognized the exercise of the obligee`s right of revocation, which came into existence posterior to the legal act, which prejudiced the property right of the obligee. In this paper, I reviewed the Supreme Court decisions, the lower court decisions, and Japanese Court decisions which recognized the obligee`s right of revocation exceptionally, and presented the theoretical basis which enables the exercise of the obligee`s right of revocation. Consequently, for the realization of true equality of the sexes under Article 36(1) of the Constitution, the wife should have the right of revocation by claimant of division of property on divorce based on the Korean Civil Code Article 406, 839-3, which provide that if the obligor willfully performs a legal act which would prejudice the property right of the obligee, the obligee may apply to the court for revocation thereof to return the matter to its original status. Additionally, the specific property on the Korean Civil Code Article 830 should be construed as the property in co-ownership.