특수거래로 인한 소비자피해 해결 방안 모색

백병성(Bung-Sung, Baek) 경성대학교 사회과학연구소 2012 社會科學硏究 Vol.28 No.2

소비자를 대상으로 한 특수거래방식에서 사기성 거래행위는 다양한 제도적인 장치에도 불구하고 감소되지 않고 있다. 본 논문은 특수거래방식에 의한 거래에서 발생한 소비자피해에 대해 관련 법규를 제ㆍ개정하거나 처벌을 엄격하게 하는 규제적인 방안과 소비자에게 충분한 정보를 제공해야 한다는 기존의 논리나 정책과 다른 차원의 접근을 시도한다. 즉 특수거래 업무를 담당하고 있는 기관들 간에 유기적인 대응, 관련 기관간 네트워크 구축을 통해 소비자피해를 최소화하기 위한 방안을 강구하는 것이 이 논문의 목적이다. 연구문제는 특수거래로 인한 소비자피해에 대해 관련 기관에서는 어떠한 조치를 취하고 있으며 이들은 각자 주어진 역할을 충분히 수행하고 있는지, 기관별로 기능을 충분히 한다면, 현재의 대응방식의 문제점이 무엇인지, 그리고 대응방안으로서 관련 기관간 협력을 한다면 구체적으로 어떤 방식으로 추진할 수 있는지 방안을 모색하는 작업이다. 해결방안으로 관련 기관간 협력적 네트워크 구축을 제안한다. 특수거래로 인한 피해를 예방하기 위해 기관간 거래와 관련된 정보를 공유할 수 있는 공유시스템 구축과 정기적인 상호작용, 처리결과의 공유를 통한 소비자에게 정보제공 등을 제안하였다. Fraudulent transactions aimed at consumers repetitively incur injuries to consumers’ properties, and may be connected to a fraudulent crime under the criminal law; thus, it is important to execute an early intervention to prevent the increase in injury more than in any other case. This study aimed at consumer injury cases and criminal cases handled at the Korea Fair Trade Commission, the Korea Customer Agency, the National Police Agency, and the Public Persecutors’ Office. Through this, the study was able to confirm thetypes of transactions, characteristics of injuries, and historic and current treatments. Also, based on that, the study helped to prevent consumer injury and offer its solution. In analyzing the cause for the occurrence of fraudulent transactions, it can be classified into the aspect of sellers, the aspect of consumers, and an institutional aspect. The problem is that consumer injuries caused by fraudulent transactions aimed at consumers have not been reduced. The joint aid response system between related institutions in connection with the subject, prosecutors, and the police who collect consumer injury cases is not realistically satisfactory. Also, investigative authorities have failed in actively dealing with fraudulent transactions aimed at consumers. This is because the investigative human resources within the Public Prosecutors’ Office and the police are lacking, and this issue is likely to be overshadowed by life body injuries in terms of priority inside the police department. In order to prevent fraudulent transactions aimed at consumers, first, it is necessary to restructure relevant legal systems related to fraudulent transactions. In the case which a customer suffers injury by the ‘intention or near-intention’ of a perpetrator, it is required to review even the introduction of efficient and powerful means of civil restrictions for preventing the recurrence of illegal and unfair acts by sellers and for helping consumers to receive actual compensation for injury through the introduction of a punitive damage system. Next is to maintain the strictness of the execution of law. It is common for criminals to continue their sales even after being punished; therefore, it is necessary to adequately conduct administrative restrictions as well as a criminal penalty. Finally, there is a need for implementing a monitoring and joint response system for fraudulent transactions. Along with monitoring consumer injury, it is necessary to implement a joint response system between relevant authorities in which the National Police Agency, administrative authorities such as the Korea Fair Trade Commission, and counseling organizations participate.

채권자취소소송에 있어서의 가액배상과 채권자평등주의

김의석(KIM, Ui-Suk) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2014 法學硏究 Vol.17 No.1

채무자가 채권자를 해함을 알고 재산권을 목적으로 한 법률행위를 한 때에는 채권자는 그 법률행위의 취소 및 원상회복을 소송의 형태로 법원에 청구할 수 있는데 이러한 채권자의 권리를 채권자취소권이라고 한다. 채권자취소권은 소송을 통해서만 행사할 수 있고 이를 채권자취소소송이라고 하는데, 채권자취소소송은 채무자의 무자력 상태에서 일반재산에 대한 강제집행을 하기 위한 준비단계로서의 중요한 기능을 한다. 채권자취소소송에서 채권자취소로 인한 결과는 채무자가 한 사해행위의 취소와 재산의 원상회복이다. 민법 제407조는 이러한 취소와 원상회복이 모든 채권자의 이익을 위하여 그 효력이 있다고 규정함으로써 채권자평등주의를 취하고 있다. 채권자취소소송에 있어서 채권자평등주의에 대하여는 다양한 관점과 찬반의 견해가 있을 수 있지만, 적어도 법경제학적인 관점에서는 채권자평등주의가 우선주의보다 더 바람직한 것이어서 충분히 정당성을 갖는다. 그러나 채권자평등주의라는 규범과는 달리 현실에서의 채권자취소소송은 가액배상에 있어서 채권자불평등이라는 결과를 낳은 경우들이 있다. 그 근본적인 이유는 가액배상금의 분배 등 절차적 측면에 관한 구체적인 규정들이 마련되어 있지 않기 때문이다. 현실에서의 채권자불평등이라는 결과는 단지 민법 제407조가 선언하고 있는 채권자평등주의에 반하는데 그치는 것이 아니라, 나아가 채권자취소 제도의 존립 이유 자체에 의문을 갖게 하는 데에 문제의 심각성이 있고, 법경제학적 관점에서도 바람직하지 않다. 대법원은 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2007다37837 판결에서 채권자취소소송의 가액배상에 있어서 채권자평등주의 실현의 법해석상 한계와 입법적 개선의 필요성에 관하여 언급하였다. 어느 분야의 판결이든 막론하고 법해석기관인 대법원이 판결에서 특정 법령의 문제점을 분명한 어조로 지적하고 나아가 입법적 개선의 필요성까지 명시적으로 언급하는 것은 그다지 흔하지 않다는 점을 고려하면, 위 대법원 판결은 위와 같은 한계와 필요성에 관하여 명시적으로 언급한 데에서 그 의의를 찾아볼 수 있다. 이제 채권자취소소송의 가액배상에 있어서의 채권자불평등을 시정하기 위한 구체적인 입법적 개선을 하여야 할 시점이다. If a debtor, knowing that his legal act would harm a creditor, would proceed to such a legal act, the creditor could seek the court to revoke sucha legal act and to restore the lost asset to the debtor. Such a right of the creditor’s is called the creditor’s revocation right. The creditor’s revocation right should be exercised only through the legal action in court. The creditor’s revocation action against the debtor’s fraudulent transaction plays an important role as a preparatory step for the creditor’s execution proceedings against the debtor’s assets. In the revocation action against the debtor’s fraudulent transaction, the creditor seeks to revoke such fraudulent transaction and to restore the lost asset to the debtor. Section 407 of the Civil Act provides that such revocation and restoration are effective for the benefits of all the creditors. Such provision could be termed as the equalitarian principle amont the creditors, which is more reasonable from the prespective of Law and Economics than the principle of “first-come first-served basis.” However, apart from such principle, in reality there occurred inequality among the creditors in some cases involving the monetary compensation for fraudulent transaction. The most principla reason for such reality is the lack of procedural provisions including the distribution of monetary compensation. The inequality among the creditors in reality is not only against the equalitarian principle among the creditors but also poses a question against the reason of the existence of the creditor’s revocation right. Furthermore, such inequality is not desirable from the perspective of Law and Economics. The supreme court mentioned the limit of statutory interpretation for the realization of equality among the creditors and the necessity of legislative improvement in monetary compensation of the creditors’ revocation action in the decision of 2007Da37837 decided on June 12, 2008. It is rare that the supreme court which has the highest authority for statutory interpretation points out the problems of a specific provision of the current status and moreover mentions the necessity for legislative solution. Now is the time that we make an effort for legislative improvement for the correction of the inequality among the creditors in monetary compensation of the creditor’s revocation action.

미국 증권법상 “Scheme Liability”에 관한 연구

김병연(Byoung-Youn Kim) 한국기업법학회 2009 企業法硏究 Vol.23 No.1

In 2002, shareholders who were defrauded in the Enron debacle brought a lawsuit to recover their losses. They charged certain Enron executives and directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations of federal securities laws specifically, that they engaged in massive insider trading while making false and misleading statements about Enron’'s financial performance, and that several large investment banks knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme with Enron(“scheme liability”). The shareholders allege that the banks structured contrived financial transactions to falsify Enron’'s financial statements. Although the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that the banks’ conduct was “hardly praiseworthy,” it ruled that because the banks themselves did not make any “false statements” about their conduct, they could not be liable to the victims even if they knowingly participated in the scheme to defraud Enron’'s shareholders. The Fifth Circuit decision conflicts with a recent Ninth Circuit decision upholding scheme liability and the position of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission EC in prior amicus briefs supporting “scheme liability,” including briefs filed in the Enron case. The question presented in Stoneridge is the same one raised in the Enron case: Does liability exist for participating in a scheme to defraud under section 10(b) and rule 10b-5(a) and (c), where the actors engaged in contrived financial transactions with a public corporation to distort and falsify its financial statements, but where those actors themselves made no public statements concerning those transactions? In its much discussed opinion in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, the Supreme Court sharply curtailed the availability of federal securities laws to hold accountants, law yers, banks and other third parties involved with securities transactions liable to investors. The Court held that third parties who do not themselves make fraudulent statements cannot be liable under Rule 10b-5 even where they assisted the public company that issued fraudulent statements affecting stock price. Before Stoneridge, these federal “scheme liability” claims were plaintiffs’ favored vehicle for pursuing third parties. Though the Stoneridge decision represents a victory for corporate advisors, it is likely to result in a significant increase in the number of scheme liability claims based on state law theories. The flexibility of the regulations is one of the most important things for better application of the anti-fraud rule against several types of deceptive schemes. In this sense the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act §178 in Korea is a catch-all provision against all unfair securities transaction.

온라인 게임 및 앱에서 미성년자가 결제한 경우 취소권의 제한에 관하여- 수원지방법원 2018. 9. 20. 선고 2017나69021판결을 중심으로 -

이준민 부산대학교 법학연구소 2022 법학연구 Vol.63 No.1

The reason for protecting minors compared to those with ability to act is that minors have limited ability to act. However, minors are a concept that comprehensively refers to natural people who do not reach a specific age, so it is inevitable that the safety of transactions will be sacrificed if minors are protected unconditionally. Therefore, unlike other restrictive capacity systems, when operating a system to protect minors, it is necessary to consider specific situations and the perception or specific behavior of minors accordingly. In particular, in online transactions where only the age of minors is identified, transactions are made without considering specific circumstances related to minors, or minors are excluded from such transactions. In order to protect minors, sanctions should be imposed when minors abuse or abuse the restrictive capacity system, while minors who do not should be considered to fully enjoy social benefits. To this end, it should be considered that the specificity of online transactions and the fact that minors are not necessarily immature in online transactions compared to adults in determining whether or not the consent of Article 5 of the Civil Act, the concept of property permitted for disposition under Article 6, and the fraudulent means of Article 17 is established.

기업회생절차에서 법원의 역할에 대한 입법론적 검토

이연갑 충북대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.28 No.1

Korean bankruptcy judges’ workload is notorious among the judges, coounselors and other experts of bankruptcy law. Moreover, there has been no clear rule on the proper assignment of cases regarding the claim determination process or avoidance of fraudulent transactions. The author argues that these problems could be solved by proper distribution of works betweeen the judges and non-judge officials. The author also suggests that the judges should not be involved with managerial tasks such as counseling the trustees(DIP-type trustees as well) because it could hurt the appearance of fairness in cases where the parties in interest would confront each other. For these arguments, the author first surveys the existing scheme of work division in reorganization cases. Then he suggests that the new post called bankruptcy manager should be installed, who mainly are responsible for the managerial jobs in the reorganization procedure. If the bankruptcy managers handles most of the managerial and non-judicial jobs, then the judges could concentrate their energe on the judicial tasks. Although new law would be needed for the suggested system, the author indicates that the problem could be (although incompletely) addressed under the current system. The judges should avoid any exparte contact, and the court shoud set up proper rules for work division regarding the claim determination process or avoidance of fraudulent transactions.

기업회생절차에서 법원의 역할에 대한 입법론적 검토

李縯甲(Lee, Yeonkab) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2017 法學硏究 Vol.28 No.1

Korean bankruptcy judges’ workload is notorious among the judges, coounselors and other experts of bankruptcy law. Moreover, there has been no clear rule on the proper assignment of cases regarding the claim determination process or avoidance of fraudulent transactions. The author argues that these problems could be solved by proper distribution of works betweeen the judges and non-judge officials. The author also suggests that the judges should not be involved with managerial tasks such as counseling the trustees(DIP-type trustees as well) because it could hurt the appearance of fairness in cases where the parties in interest would confront each other. For these arguments, the author first surveys the existing scheme of work division in reorganization cases. Then he suggests that the new post called bankruptcy manager should be installed, who mainly are responsible for the managerial jobs in the reorganization procedure. If the bankruptcy managers handles most of the managerial and non-judicial jobs, then the judges could concentrate their energe on the judicial tasks. Although new law would be needed for the suggested system, the author indicates that the problem could be (although incompletely) addressed under the current system. The judges should avoid any ex parte contact, and the court shoud set up proper rules for work division regarding the claim determination process or avoidance of fraudulent transactions.

증권거래세의 과세근거와 그 함의 - 대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2017두52979 판결을 소재로 하여 -

황남석(Hwang, Nam Seok) 한국세법학회 2021 조세법연구 Vol.27 No.2

대법원 2020. 10. 29. 선고 2017두52979 판결(이하 ‘대상 판결’)은 주식의 증여계약이 사해행위취소 판결로 취소되고 원상회복된 주식에 관한 강제경매절차에서 주식이 매각되어 매각대금이 모두 채권자에게 배당된 경우 증권거래세 납세의무를 부담하는 주권의 양도자(증권거래세법 제 3 조 제 3 호)는 사해행위의 채무자인가 아니면 수익자인가가 다투어진 사안이다. 대법원은 대상 판결에서 사해행위의 채무자가 주권의 양도자라고 보았다. 그러나 후술하는 바와 같이, 대법원이 종래 사해행위취소 판결의 효력과 관련하여 일관되게 상대적 효력설을 취하고 있다는 점을 고려한다면 사해행위의 채무자를 주권의 양도자로 선뜻 인정하기는 쉽지 않다. 따라서 이 글에서는 증권거래세의 과세근거를 고찰한 후에 다음과 같은 결론을 내리고자 한다. 첫째, 유통세의 일종인 증권거래세의 과세근거 내지 담세력의 근거는 주권의 양도인이 자의로 주권을 양도하는 경우에는 그 시점에서 과거에 주식의 보유를 통해서 향유하였던 (자본의 집중을 통하여 발생하는) 잉여가치와 주식의 처분과정에서 표출되는 급부능력에 있다고 해석하는 것이 합리적이라고 생각된다. 이렇게 해석한다면 과세대상이 되는 거래를 적어도 주주의 의사에 기한 주주권의 이전으로 제한하여 해석할 필요가 있다. 따라서 강제경매에 의한 주권의 이전에 관하여는 증권거래세를 과세할 수 없다고 본다. 둘째, 대상 판결은 유통세의 법적 성질과 사해행위취소의 효력에 관한 상대적 효력설을 설시한 후에 “채권자취소권의 본질과 효력, 증권거래세의 특질과 관련 규정의 문언과 내용 등을 종합하면, 사해행위취소 판결로 주식의 증여계약이 취소되고 채무자 명의로 원상회복된 주식이 강제경매절차에서 매각되어 매각대금이 모두 채권자에게 배당되었다면, 주식의 소유권이 유상으로 이전됨으로써 성립하는 증권거래세 납세의무를 부담하는 증권거래세법 제 3 조 제 3 호에 따른 주권의 양도자는 수익자 또는 전득자가 아닌 채무자로 보아야 한다”고 판시하면서 그 이유로 첫째, 사해행위취소 판결로 채무자 명의로 원상회복된 재산에 대한 강제경매절차에서 매각대금이 채권자에게 배당되면, 채무자의 채무변제에 충당되어 채무가 소멸하고 재산의 매각대금으로 채무자의 채무가 변제된다는 점에서는 사해행위취소의 효과가 채무자에게도 미친다고 볼 수 있다는 점, 둘째, 증권거래세는 주권의 유상 양도라는 사실 자체를 과세대상으로 하는 행위세이고, 주권이 증권시장 밖에서 증권회사를 통하지 않고 양도되는 경우 주권의 양도자가 담세자이자 납세의무자가 되는데, 사해행위취소에 따라 채무자 소유명의로 원상회복된 주식이 강제경매절차에서 매각되는 경우 주권의 양도행위 자체에서 드러나는 주권의 양도자는 소유명의자인 채무자라는 점을 들고 있다. 그러나 위와 같은 논리는 기존의 민사법리 및 판례상 확립되어 있는 실질과세원칙과 부합하지 않아 받아들이기 어렵다. 오히려 대상 판결에서와 같이 채무자나 수익자 그 누구의 의사에 기하지 않고 주주권이 이전된 경우를 과세대상에서 제외하는 것으로 해석하는 것이 기존 법리와의 상충없이 증권거래세의 본질에 부합하는 과세결과를 가져올 수 있다는 점에서 바람직하다고 생각한다. In Supreme Court’s decision 2017Doo52979 (hereafter referred to as the ‘target judgment’) ruled on October 29, 2020, the issue of whether the transferor of stock (Security Transaction Tax Act, Article 3, item 3), who is obligated to pay securities transaction tax in the case of compulsaoy auction, is the debtor or the beneficiary of the fraudulent act wad addressed. The Supreme Court held that the debtor of the fraudulent act was the transferor of stock in the target judgment. However, as will be described later, it is not easy to readily recognize the debtor of the fraudulent act as the transferor of the stock, considering that the Supreme Court consistently takes the theory of relative effectiveness in relation to the effect of the cancelation decision of the fraudulent act. Therefore, in this paper, after considering the taxation basis of the securities transaction tax, I would like to draw the following conclusions. First, the basis for taxation or the burden of the securities transaction tax, a kind of transaction tax, is that if the transferor of the stock transfers the stock voluntarily, he or she enjoyed the surplus value of the holding of the stock in the past(caused through the concentration of capital) and the ability to pay uncovered in the process of disposition of the stock. In this way, it is necessary to interpret the transaction subject to taxation by limiting it to at least the transfer of shareholder rights based on the will of the shareholder. Therefore, it is deemed that securities transaction tax cannot be levied on the transfer of stocks by compulsory auction. Second, the target judgment reconfirm the theory of relative effectiveness regarding the legal nature of transaction tax and the effect of the cancellation of fraudulent acts, and then ruled that “combining the nature and effect of the creditor’s right of revocation, the characteristics of the securities transaction tax and the text and contents of related regulations, if the gift contract of stocks is canceled due to a decision on the cancellation of fraudulent acts and the stocks restored to their original state in the debtor"s name are sold in the compulsory auction procedure and all the sale proceeds are distributed to the creditors, the securities transaction tax shall be levied on the debtor not the beneficiary or transferee.” The target judgment explain that reason of the ruling as follows: - if the sale proceeds are distributed to the creditor in the compulsory auction procedure for the property restored to its original state in the debtor"s name due to the cancellation decision of the fraudulent act, the debt will be extinguished and the debtor"s debt will be paid with the proceeds from the sale of the property. In that sense, the effect of the cancellation of the fraudulent act can also be seen to affect the debtor. - the securities transaction tax is an act tax that is subject to tax on the fact that it is a levied on the transfer of stock certificates. When stocks restored of ownership are sold in the compulsory auction procedure, the seeming transferor of stocks revealed in the act of transferring stocks itself is the debtor. However, the above logic is difficult to accept because it does not conform to the existing civil law principle and substance over form doctrine. Rather, as in the target judgment, interpreting the case where shareholder rights are transferred without the intention of either the debtor or beneficiary as excluding from the subject of taxation can bring about a taxation result consistent with the essence of the securities transaction tax without conflicting with existing legal principles. securities transaction tax.

물적담보 제공행위의 사해성 판단 기준

최준규 ( Choi Joon-kyu ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.33 No.4

이 글에서는 물적담보 제공행위의 사해성 판단기준을 살펴보았다. 검토의 결론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 채무초과 상태에서 기존 채권자 중 1인에게 물적담보를 제공하는 행위는 비본지행위이자 편파행위이기 때문에 사해행위 취소의 대상이 된다. 둘째, 채무초과 상태에서 새로운 채권자에게 물적담보를 제공하는 행위는 협의의 사해행위에 해당할 수 있다. 다만, 채무자의 자력회복을 위한 불가피한 선택이라면 사해행위성이 부정된다. 이 경우 기존채무에 대한 담보제공 부분도 함께 사해행위성이 부정될 수 있다. 그러나 기존채무에 대한 사해행위 부정은 엄격한 요건 하에 예외적으로만 이루어져야 한다. 셋째, 선행 가압류 후 특정 채권자에게 담보를 제공한 경우 선행 가압류권자와 근저당권자는 평등변제를 받는다. 따라서 물적담보 제공행위는 선행 가압류권자에 대하여 사해행위가 아니다. 넷째, 물상보증인의 물적담보 제공행위는 - 선행 가압류 여부와 무관하게 - 협의의 사해행위에 해당한다. 다만 물상보증인과 채무자 사이의 법률관계에 따라 사해성 판단기준이 달라질 수 있다. 다섯째, 물상보증인의 물적담보 제공행위는 물상보증인 입장에서도 무상성이 인정되고, 근저당권자 입장에서도 무상의 이익을 얻었다고 평가할 수 있을 때에만 채무자회생법상 무상행위 부인의 대상이 된다. 여섯째, 법정담보물권 설정행위의 경우 근거법률의 입법취지에 비추어 제도를 남용하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우에 한해 사해성을 인정해야 한다. 법정담보물권의 공시기능이 떨어질수록 제도의 남용 위험이 커지므로, 법원은 더 적극적으로 제도의 남용 여부를 심사해야 한다. In this article, I examined criteria of avoiding the transaction that granted a security to creditor, outside bankruptcy proceedings. My conclusions are as follows. First, when insolvent debtor granted one of prior creditors a security, such transaction is a preference and an incongruent coverage, so can be avoided by Korean Civil Law Art.406(Creditor`s Right to Avoid Fraudulent Act). Such transaction is a sort of fraudulent act in a broad sense. Second, when insolvent debtor granted new creditor a security, such transaction can be fraudulent act in a narrow sense. But when debtor could not but make such deal to rehabilitate himself, it may not be avoided. In that case, granting security not only for new debts but also for previous debts may not be avoided. However, the denial of avoidance about previous debts can only be justified under strict conditions. If not, other prior general creditors are likely to be unduly disfavored for the individual benefit of a new secured creditor. Third, when insolvent debtor granted one of prior creditors a security in his property, on which provisional attachment had been executed by another prior creditor, prior provisional attachment creditor and secured creditor stand on the same rank in auction and distribution procedure. So such security transaction is not fraudulent act to prior attachment creditor. Fourth, when real guarantee granted another person`s creditor a security in his own property, such transaction is fraudulent act in a narrow sense without regard to the existence of prior provisional attachment creditor on that property. But the criteria of avoidance may be different according to the legal relationship between real guarantee and debtor. Fifth, when real guarantee granted another person`s creditor a security in his own property, such transaction can be avoided by Korean Debtor`s Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act Art.100 para.① subpara.4(Avoidance of Gratuitous Benefit), only if such deal is gratuitous not only from the viewpoint of real guarantee, but also from that of the secured creditor. Sixth, when insolvent debtor made a contract, and consequently security right came into force by operation of law, such contract can be avoided only if contract parties abused statutory security right. The more difficult it is for outside parties to identify the security right by operation of law for the lack of public notice about that right, the more likely the abuse of the right is to happen. So accordingly, court must screen the abuse of the right in a more positive manner.

채권자취소권에 관한 민법개정안의 검토

양형우 한국민사법학회 2014 民事法學 Vol.69 No.-

An obligee’s right for revocation of fraudulent act and the right of denial in bankruptcy proceedings have the same purpose in the sense that an obligee seeks to secure the responsible properties by revoking or denying an obligor’s fraudulent act. Therefore, the draft of the Civil Code amendment regarding an obligee’s right for revocation of fraudulent act is assessed as stipulating the right of denial in the Obligor Rehabilitation Act in an integrated and unified way. Also it is assessed as intending to seek a balanced regulation between an obligee and an beneficiary, and also among the obligees. However, in order to solve the problem related to belonging, etc. of the surplus remaining after getting a dividend through the enforcement of forcible execution by an obligee against the real properties recovered in the name of an obligor based on a judgment of obligee’s revocation of fraudulent act, it is required to establish a legal foundation for a beneficiary to accept (admit) the forcible execution based on forcible title against an obligor within the extent of joint security. That is to say, the main text of Article 407-2, Paragraph 1 in the amendment draft shall be revised as “An obligee may enforce a force execution against the properties of a beneficiary acquired on the basis of legal acts specified in Article 406 in the name of an obligee within the extent of joint security in accordance with the Civil Execution Act.” In addition, the amendment draft has an academic value in that it is an outcome presenting a solution through the attempt of critical approach from various points of view with regard to the system of an obligee’s right for revocation of fraudulent act under operation depending on two articles in the above. Therefore, it is desirable to have further discussions in legal comparison together with practical review actively.

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.