구술심리(口述審理) 소묘(素描)

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 안암법학회 2007 안암 법학 Vol.- No.24

판례평석(判例評釋) : 실명보도와 불법행위책임 -대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2006다65620 판결(공보불게재)-

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 법조협회 2009 法曹 Vol.58 No.6

최근 한 연쇄살인범의 실명과 사진을 보도한 신문기사를 계기로, 범죄용의자 또는 피의자에 대한 실명보도에 관한 논의가 활발하다. 대법원은 이미 1998. 7. 14. 선고 96다17257 판결에서 범죄에 관한 보도는 일반적으로 공익성이 인정되지만, 범인의 신원에 관한 보도는 그렇지 않다고 판단하였다. 그 후 대법원이 범죄보도에서 범죄용의자 또는 피의자의 실명을 보도하는 것에 대해 원칙적으로 공익성을 인정하지 않는 것으로 이해되어 왔다. 대상판결은 정신과의사인 원고가 무자격자로 하여금 마약류를 취급하였다는 내용의 보도를 한 언론사에 대한 손해배상청구소송에서 공익성이 있다고 보아 원고의 청구를 기각한 원심을 파기하고 환송하면서, 위 96다17257 판결을 인용하였다. 그러나 대상판결은 위 96다17257 판결을 기계적으로 적용한 것으로, 사안의 특수성을 충분히 고려하지 않았다는 비판을 면하기 어렵다. 대상판결에서는 정신과의사의 직무에 관련된 행위가 범죄의 내용이고, 그 범죄로 인하여 불특정 다수에게 위해가 발생할 우려가 있는 사안에서 실명보도를 하였다. 반면 위 96다17257 판결에서는 가정주부가 이혼소송 중 남편을 청부폭행하려 했다는 내용의 보도로서, 그 범죄로 인하여 불특정 다수에게 위해가 발생할 우려는 없다. 앞의 것은 정신과의사의 자격이나 자질에 관한 사회적 평가 내지 비판의 자료로서 그의 실명이 공개될 필요가 있었지만, 뒤의 사안에서는 그와 같은 필요성이 없었다. 그러므로 대상판결에서 위 96다17257 판결을 인용하여 공익성을 부인한 것은 타당하지 않다.

도산법상 기존경영자 관리인의 지위

李縯甲(Yeon Kab Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2009 비교사법 Vol.16 No.1

Korea introduced the Debtor-In-Possession(DIP) to the Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law in 2005. Korean DIP is slightly different from that of the US in that we need the decision of the bankruptcy court. However, this amendment was revolutionary because this shows that we have changed our attitude toward the goal of the reorganization process. It seems that efficiency and speedy management of the reorganization cases have taken the top priority. In spite of some arguments against the introduction of this pro-debtor institute, the court allows the DIPs keep their positions in almost all the cases after the amendment. Allowing for the tenacious stance against the DIP before the amendment, the adaptability of the court seems admirable. Among the new problems presented by this changed circumstances, the author covers the basics: the status of the DIP and the relationship of the DIP with the shareholders. We have no provisions regarding the status of the DIP in the Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law. The author argues that some articles of the Trust Code should be applied to the DIP, especially the DIP's duty of loyalty. Although the DIP does not lose its status as the director of the bankrupt corporation, she owes the duty of loyalty not only to the shareholders, but also to the creditors. In the usual case of insolvency, where the assets exceeds the liabilities, the author argues the DIP owes the fiduciary duties only to the creditors. According to the Commercial Law, the directors shall be elected and removed only by the shareholders. However, after the initiation of the reorganization process, the shareholders' right to remove the directors should be denied when the corporation is insolvent, because the shareholders would no longer be real parties in interest. Therefore, the court should not permit the shareholders' meeting of the insolvent corporation. Even if the company is not insolvent, the author argues that the court should be allowed to consider factors such as the performance and integrity of the DIP, the possible influence upon the reorganization process.

특집논문 : 신탁법 개정에 따른 「부동산등기법」개정안의 검토

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2011 法學硏究 Vol.21 No.3

신탁법 개정으로 신탁재산 중 중요한 지위를 점하는 부동산에 관한 공시방법으로서 등기제도의 정비가 필요하게 되었다. 이에 정부는 2011.3.14. 부동산등기법 개정안을 제출하였다. 부동산등기법 개정안은 크게 두 부분으로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 하나는 신탁재산에 속하는 부동산에 관한 권리의 이전, 보존, 설정, 변경등기에 관하여 부동산등기법의 일반원칙과 다른 특칙을 정한 부분이다. 여기에는 재신탁에서 등기권리자와 등기의무자에 관한 규정(개정안 제126조), 자기신탁이나 자기거래에서 공동신청주의의 예외를 정한 규정(개정안 제127조)이 포함된다. 다른 하나는 신탁등기에 관하여 개정 신탁법의 내용을 반영하여 신설하거나, 기존의 규정을 새로 고친 부분이다. 여기에는 유언대용신탁, 수익자 연속신탁, 수익증권발행신탁 등의 경우 그 뜻을 신탁등기사항으로 한 것(개정안 제119조), 신탁의 합병·분할의 경우 신탁등기의 신청에 관한 규정(개정안 제125조), 담보권신탁에 관한 특례규정(개정안 제129조의3) 등이 포함된다. 어느 것이나 신탁법상 법률관계의 특수성이 반영될 수밖에 없는 규정으로서, 신탁법과 부동산등기법 연구자들의 신중한 검토가 필요하다. 필자는 이 논문에서 부동산등기법의 주요 규정을 검토하면서, 부분적으로 수정하거나 정리할 필요가 있는 부분을 지적하였으나, 대체로 개정안의 취지에 공감한다는 의견을 피력하였다. Following the passage of the new Trust Act bill, numerous acts are in need of revision to reflect the change. The Real Estate Registration Act is one of these acts and the government proposed a new bill last March. This bill provides new clauses about the trust by declaration, consecutive beneficiary trust, will substitute trust, trust with beneficiary certificate, and security trust, all of which were newly created by the new Trust Act. The bill changes the trust registration process as well. Current Law requires two applicnats for the trust registration. However, according to the bill, the trustee shall be the only applicant in all the trust registration application. The registration officer shall be required to draw up the register, whereas the applicant need to draw up the document under the law in force. The application form will be changed as well. The Author explains these new clauses one by one, commenting on some minor defects which will be corrected in the Legislature. He also urges more discussions on the bill among the academics and lawyers in both the trust law field and the registration law field.

역학연구결과에 의한 인과관계의 증명

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 법조협회 2012 法曹 Vol.61 No.7

Recently Korean courts are struggling with epidemiologic data in toxic tort cases such as cigarette case, dioxin case, and air pollution case. However, courts do not have a clear and consistent standard which would enable judges to understand and analyze the epidemiologic data. In this article, the author provides some basic knowledge regarding the epidemiology. Then the author goes on explaining how to analyze the data from the judges` point of view. He argues that the epidemiology should be given proper weight in the courtroom. Unlike some scholars who maintains that epidemiology has no relevance with the cause-in-fact issue, the author claims that the judges should understand the epidemiology and use it to find the cause-in-fact in toxic tort cases. However, the author also warns that the judges should be very careful when they evaluate the evidence because the epidemiology has a lot of shortcomings. He urges the judges to get prepared with this complex science and utilize its potential to reach a fair judgement.

헤드헌팅에 관한 몇 가지 쟁점

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 법조협회 2008 法曹 Vol.57 No.5

최근 헤드헌팅에 대한 인식이 변화하면서, 헤드헌팅과 관련된 분쟁이 발생하기 시작하였다. 헤드헌팅은 구인기업으로부터 특정한 고위관리직 또는 전문직 종사자의 추천의뢰를 받아, 적절한 후보자를 탐색·추천하는 것을 말한다. 헤드헌팅은 직업안정법상 직업소개와 달리, 고위관리직 또는 전문직 종사자를 소개대상으로 하고, 구인기업으로부터 의뢰를 받아 탐색을 시작하며, 보수 역시 구인기업으로부터만 받는다는 특징이 있다. 직업안정법은 유료직업소개사업의 등록제를 정하고 있는데, 그 규제대상이 되는 유료직업소개사업은 헤드헌팅과 그 소개대상에 있어서 질적인 차이가 있으므로, 직업안정법을 헤드헌팅업에 대하여 적용하는 것은 부적절하다. 따라서 헤드헌팅을 하는 서치 펌은 직업안정법에 따라 등록할 필요가 없다. 또한, 직업안정법은 알선수수료의 한도를 정하고 있는데, 그 규정의 취지는 구직자로부터 과다한 보수를 받는 것을 제한하는 데 있으므로, 구직자로부터는 보수를 받지 않는 헤드헌팅에 대하여는 이 규정이 적용되지 않는다고 보아야 한다. 헤드헌터가 구인회사로부터 보수를 받기 위해서는 보수청구의 근거가 되는 계약, 계약에 따른 후보자의 추천, 그리고 서치 펌의 노력과 후보자와 구인기업 사이의 계약체결 사이에 인과관계가 인정되어야 한다. 최근 대법원은 서치 펌이 추천한 후보자와 구인기업 사이에 채용계약이 체결된 후, 후보자가 개인적인 사정을 들어 위 채용계약을 해지하게 되자, 서치 펌이 후보자를 상대로 보수 상당의 손해배상을 구한 사건에서, 후보자와 서치 펌 사이에서는 계약관계가 성립되지 않고, 불법행위도 인정되지 않는다고 판단하였다. 이 판결은 헤드헌팅업계의 실상을 적절히 반영한 것으로, 서치 펌과 후보자, 그리고 구인기업 사이의 법률관계에 관한 중요한 선례가 될 것이다.

공익신탁법에 관한 약간의 검토

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 법조협회 2015 法曹 Vol.64 No.5

The public trust(“charity trust” in Anglo-American trust law) has been regulated by the Trust Act 1960 in Korea. This has been changed by the new Public Trust Act 2013. This Act stipulates special rules for the public trust. Some of them are old but detailed than the former law, others are new to our charity law. In this article, the author studies the problems of the new law, and raise policy questions. First, some of the articles need to be revised. For example, Articles 4(9) conflicts with Article 24. In Article 4(9), the settlor has to make a provision in the instrument that the trustee shall give over the trust property to another charitable corporation, charitable trust or the state when the trust fails. However, the trust property “reverts” to the named parties in the instrument when the trust fails according to Article 24. This contradictory rules are in need of correction. The appointment of “trust administrator”, who has the power of enforcement in the public trust, needs to be compulsory. Second, the new Act imports the “official custodian” from the English Charities Act. Regardless of the necessity of the new rule, the Act does not provide the proper process by which the trust property is transferred. Third, the cy-pres doctrine is virtually abolished in the new Act, and it is not a desirable legal policy. At the end of the trust, the trust property cannot revert to the settlor or the heirs thereof, or any non-charitable entities, and the trust cannot be continued by the cy-pres rule. In this regime, the settlor’s freedom of alienation is severely curtailed, and this would result in decrease of incentive to make the charity trust.

대륙법 국가에 의한 신탁법리의 수용

이연갑 ( Yeon Kab Lee ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2010 연세 글로벌 비즈니스 법학연구 Vol.2 No.2

Since 19th century, English trust became one of the hottest topics in the comparative studies. Many scholars from civil or common law world maintained it would be impossible for civil countries to import the trust. However, beginning with Lichtenstein, a lot of civil law countries accepted the trust into their legal systems and the list is still growing in 21th century. In some countries, the reception was through the court, whereas in others through the legislation. In some countries, the reception was motivated by investment needs, whereas in others to keep ahead with neighbor jurisdictions. Despite different reasons and ways for the reception, they all encountered “basic problems” of trust reception: (1) Who is the owner of the trust property? (2) If the trustee misdirects the trust property, can the beneficiary claim the trust property against a third person? (3) If the trustee goes bankrupt, can the beneficiary claim the trust property against the bankruptcy estate? All these questions have something to do with the basic notions of the civil legal tradition going all the way back to the Roman law. Civil law countries which accepted the trust have been struggling with these questions, suggesting various answers. However, those answers are not perfectly in accord with the basic notions of the civil law countries, nor perfectly equivalent with the common law trust in legal or functional perspectives. There are a lot of gaps which need to be filled by both civil and common lawyers.

信託財産에 强制執行할 수 있는 債權者

이연갑(Yeon Kab Lee) 중앙법학회 2009 中央法學 Vol.11 No.4

As with English trust law, Korean Trust Code has the principle of non-liability of the trust estate. In fact, the Trust Code is modelled on the 19th-century trust law of England, Therefore, in principle, not only trustee`s personal creditors, but also trust creditors could not reach the trust property directly. However, where the liability was properly incurred in the performance of the trustee`s duties and powers as trustee, the Code allows the trust fund to be directly liable, whether the trustee has the right of indemnity or not. This exception is the most peculiar aspect of the Korean trust law in comparison with the English trust law. In English trust law, the trustee is personally liable to the full extent unless in the contract with the creditor there is a provision limiting liability. The trustee is entitled to indemnity out of the trust estate only if she was not at fault in incurring the liability. The creditor could reach the trust estate indirectly through the trustee`s right of indemnity. On the other hand, the creditors of the Korean trust could reach the trust estate directly as long as they have rights properly incurred in the performance of the trustee`s duties and powers as trustee. Some commentators argue the trust estate is liable even if the trustee lacks the capacity or due authorization. They also argue the victim of a tort committed by a trustee in the administration of the trust should be entitled to have recourse to the trust estate, irrespective of any indebtedness of the trustee to the trust estate or of any breach of the trustee`s duties. The Supreme Court seems to accept the argument. However, the author contends the result could not be achieved by the interpretation of the Code. Although we need to consider the changed business circumstances, that does not mean the judiciary could interfere in the legislature`s affair as it pleases.

자녀양육신탁의 효용과 쟁점

이연갑(Lee Yeon Kab) 한국가족법학회 2017 가족법연구 Vol.31 No.2

In constrast to the situation of Anglo-American countries, the child support trust is a rare thing in Korea, despite its long history of trust law. In this article, the author tries to explain the usefulness and structure of the child support trust in terms of Korean trust law. First, the author argues that the child support trust could be used as an incentive for child support payment. At least some of non-custodial parents seems to delay or deny the payments because of concerns that the payments could be used not for the child or children of their broken marriage, but for the custodial parent or her/his newly married spouses or their child or children. If it could be guaranteed that the payment could be used soley for her/his child or children, he/she would be more willing to pay the support. According to the author, the child support trust could provide that guaranty. Second, although in principle, the child support trust should be settled only after the parents agreed to, the author maintains that the family court could order the non-custodial parent to settle the trust for the benefit of the child or children, in certain limited circumstances. Third, the author predicts that the close family member or a friend of the trustor (non-custodial parent) could usually be the trustee of the child support trust, because the size of the trust property is comparatively small, which would make the trust companies less inclined to serve as trustees for the child support trust. Moreover, Capital Market Law of Korea, which provides the minimum standard of capital for the trust business, makes it almost impossible for the lawyers, paralegals or social welfare NGOs to serve as trustees. Therefore, there should be careful assistance by the lawyers for those who are going to serve as trustees, especially in the drafting stage of the trust settlement process.