우리나라 주요 김 생산해역의 해수 및 물김에 대한 위생학적 평가

정상현,신순범,오은경,조미라,윤민철,이희정,손광태,Jeong, Sang Hyeon,Shin, Soon Bum,Oh, Eun Gyoung,Jo, Mi-Ra,Yoon, Min Chul,Lee, Hee Jung,Son, Kwang-Tae 한국수산과학회 2017 한국수산과학회지 Vol.50 No.4

Sanitary evaluation of seawater and Pyropia sp. laver collected from the five major laver growing areas in Korea was performed four times over the course of a year. The seawater quality in four of these five areas was regarded as the clean area according to Korean criteria, but the seawater at one investigation site in Seoheon area was found to exceed the standard for fecal coliform. In the bacteriological safety analysis of laver (raw source), the percentages of samples not conforming to Chinese criteria at the five sites were 55.6% (Seocheon), 70.0% (Shinan), 81.8% [Jindo (Haenam)], 63.6% (Wando), and 28.6% [Goheung (Jangheung)]. Pathogenic bacteria were not detected in all laver samples. The food safety of laver (raw source) based on heavy metal concentration was confirmed using Korean criteria; the concentrations of heavy metals in laver samples collected from the major laver growing areas were 0.008-0.632 mg/kg wet weight (ww) lead, 0.024-0.137 mg/kg ww cadmium, 0.908-2.892 mg/kg ww total arsenic, and 0.003-0.013 mg/kg ww total mercury. Therefore, pollution source management and periodic monitoring of heavy metals may be required to improve the food safety of laver produced in these laver growing areas.

하나의 관리도로 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 절차

정상현,이재현,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Lee, Jae-Heon 한국통계학회 2008 응용통계연구 Vol.21 No.3

평균과 분산이 동시에 변화할 수 있는 공정을 관리할 경우, 평균의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도와 분산의 변화를 탐지하는 관리도를 병행하여 사용하는 것이 일반적이다. 여러 연구자들이 하나의 관리도를 사용하여 공정 평균과 분산의 변화를 동시에 탐지할 수 있는 절차를 제안했는데, 이 논문에서는 이와 같은 관리도들을 소개하고 그 효율을 비교하였다. 그 결과 GLR 관리도 Omnibus EWMA 관리도 그리고 Interval 관리도는 충분히 좋은 효율을 가짐을 알 수 있었다. Two control charts are usually required to monitor both the process mean and variance. In this paper, we introduce control procedures for jointly monitoring the process mean and variance with one control chart, and investigate efficiency of the introduced charts by comparing with the combined two EWMA charts. Our numerical results show that the GLR chart, the Omnibus EWMA chart, and the Interval chart have good ARL properties for simultaneous changes in the process mean and variance.

반응성구조체의 고속충돌에 따른 온도분포 분석

정상현,조수경,배광태,이기봉,Jung, Sang-Hyun,Cho, Soo Gyeong,Bae, Gwang Tae,Lee, Kibong 한국군사과학기술학회 2017 한국군사과학기술학회지 Vol.20 No.5

The temperature profiles upon high speed impact of reactive structural materials were analyzed. A two color pyrometer, which included high-speed camera, spectral splitter, and band pass filters, was utilized to measure transient temperature profiles during and after reactive metal samples impacted into steel plate with velocities of 1600~1700 m/s. The spatial temperature distribution was analyzed from the ratio of spectral radiances at two different wavelength in infrared zone, i.e. 700 and 900 nm. The measured temperatures were calibrated with black body source. Two different types of metal samples, namely aluminum and nickel, were employed to understand reaction behavior upon the impact of samples in ambient condition. According to our experiments, the Ni sample appeared to barely react with ambient air producing an instant small fireball, while Al sample reacts violently with air generating a relatively prolong fireball.

해약금으로 추정되는 계약금의 일부지급과 계약의 해제에 관한 판결 재검토

정상현(JUNG, Sang-Hyun)(鄭相鉉),박석일(PARK, Seok-Il)(朴碩一) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2019 성균관법학 Vol.31 No.4

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea, for a long time, have concluded that one of the parties who enter into a main contract issued a down payment to the other party, the issuance of down payment is a kind of contract. That is to say, the Korean Supreme Court recognize a separate down payment contract independent of the main contract such as a sale contract. Furthermore, it is controversial whether this down payment contract is contract for the need things or not. However, in personal opinion, this argument seems to be unnecessary in light of the interpretation of the Article 565 (1) of the Civil Code of Korea(CCK), the reality of real transactions and the will of contracting parties. Even if we do not accept such a contract as a down payment contract or a contract for the need things, it is a legal effect that occurs when all the down payment are issued. Therefore, I think that the down payment is a part of the whole purchase price, not more than that nor less than that. It is only the first payment that is paid in dividends, which has the special significance. In a realistic transaction, the down payment also has the same meaning as there is no doubt that the buyer s mid payment or balance paid to the seller is a part of the total sales price. However, since the down payment is the first to be paid, it is only an estimated effect of the money for evidence of contracts and the contract releasing fee, or penalty and compensation for damages due to the separate agreement. Therefore, the issuance of the down payment is not necessarily regarded as an independent contract. In fact, the buyer will not be willing to conclude a contract for the payment of the down payment separately from the sale contract, issuing a down payment to the seller. Rather, it is in reality that the parties have the intention that the contents of the sale contract shall have the intention of making a commitment to pay the whole sale price divided into down payment, intermediate payment and balanced payment. As a result, the Supreme Court of Korea has shown contradictory conclusions about the award of the down payment in 2008 and 2015. In these judicial precedents, even though the down payment was not paid at all or was partially paid, Supreme Court presumed that a down payment contract was concluded. This is the ruling that there is a theoretical contradiction. 우리 대법원은 계약금의 교부를 주된 계약과 별도로 체결되는 ‘종된 계약’이라 하고, 이를 널리 ‘계약금계약’이라고 하며, 그 법적 성격을 ‘요물계약’이라고 해석한다. 물론 당사자가 계약금의 액수나 지급시기 및 지급방식에 관하여 명시적으로 주된 계약과 별도의 약정을 하는 경우에는 이러한 해석도 무방하다. 그러나 통상 계약금은 주된 계약의 내용으로 그 액수 등을 정하고 그에 따라 교부될 뿐이다. 이에 대한 대법원의 태도는 계약금을 해약금으로 추정하는 민법 제565조 제1항의 규정 해석이나 실제 거래의 현실, 당사자의 계약금 교부의사에 비추어 불필요한 개념을 인정한 결과라고 생각된다. 왜냐하면 해약금 추정의 효력은 계약금 교부를 굳이 계약금계약이라든가 요물계약 내지 낙성계약이라 하지 않더라도, 주된 계약의 내용으로 계약금을 모두 교부하면 그 자체로서 발생하는 법률효과이기 때문이다. 위 규정에 따라 ‘계약 당시에’ 계약금이 ‘교부’되면 ‘당사자간에 다른 약정이 없는 한’ 해약금으로 추정되어, 교부자는 이를 ‘포기’하고 수령자는 그 배액을 ‘상환’하여 계약을 해제할 수 있다. 계약금은 매매대금의 일부이고, 분할하여 지급되는 대금 중 가장 선행하는 것으로서 특별한 의미가 있을 뿐이다. 이러한 입장에서 계약금에 관한 대법원의 태도를 살펴보면, 계약금의 교부를 통한 주된 계약의 구속력 확보와 해약금 추정력의 인정범위를 일관하여 견지하지 못한 것으로 생각된다. 이 상황은 이 글의 평석대상인 2008년 판례와 2015년 판례가 등장하면서 더욱 심화된 것으로 보인다. 그 이전의 판결들은 계약금 교부를 주된 계약과 별도의 ‘계약금계약’으로 파악하고, 이를 ‘요물계약’으로 이해하는 확고한 태도를 유지하였다. 그러나 2008년 계약금이 전혀 교부되지 않은 사례, 2015년 계약금 중 극히 일부만 교부된 사례에서, 해약금 추정에 따른 주된 계약의 해제를 인정하게 되면 계약의 구속력을 매우 후퇴시키는 결론에 이를 것이라는 우려가 예상되었다. 이에 대법원은 기본원칙으로 계약금계약의 요물계약설을 유지하면서, 추가적이거나 가정적인 내용의 판시를 통하여 낙성계약설의 일면을 드러내었다. 즉 2008년 판례에서는 아직 지급하지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 불이행하면 계약금계약 자체를 해제할 수 있다는 법정해제(민법 제544조) 가능성을 나타내었다. 이것은 계약금계약의 요물성을 전제하면서도, 계약금이 전혀 지급되지 않은 상태에서 계약금계약은 성립되었고 그 효력으로 아직 지급되지 않은 계약금의 지급의무를 인정함으로써, 낙성계약설의 논리를 그대로 드러낸 것이다. 또한 2015년 판결에서도 계약금을 일부만 지급한 경우에는 계약금계약이 성립되지 않았으므로 이를 해제할 수 없다고 전제하면서, ‘해제할 수 있다고 하더라도’ 해약금의 기준은 실제 지급된 계약금이 아니라 약정 계약금이라는 가정적 결론을 도출하였다. 이 역시 계약금이 일부 지급된 경우에는 요물계약설에 의할 경우 해제할 수 없다는 결론과 낙성계약설에 의할 경우 주된 계약을 해제할 수 있다는 결론이 동시에 존재하는 모순적 상황을 드러낸 것이었다.

夫婦財産契約과 約定登記의 活用方案

정상현(鄭相鉉, Jung, Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 비교법연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.3S

Le régime matrimonial contient conventional et légal. Le choix du régime est libre. Les futurs époux jouissent d'une très grande liberté pour fixer comme ils l'entendent leur régime matrimonial. Les seules limites rencontrées par les époux sont relatives aux règles institutionnelles du mariage, qui définissent les devoirs entre époux, la puissance paternelle, la tutelle et l'administration légale. Le régime matrimonial de convention signifie le contrat de mariage. Le contrat de mariage est la convention que conculent les futures époux pour fixer leur régime matrimonial. Lorsqu'ils ne font pas de contrat, les époux sont soumis au régime de la communauté légale. Pour écarter le régime légal, les futurs époux doivent faire un contrat de mariage devant un notaire. L'acte de marriage mentionne l'existence ou l'absence du contrat. A l'égard du contrat de mariage, l'article 829 code civil coréen prescrit que les époux peuvent contracter avant le mariage sur leurs biens(alinéa 1), mais ils ne peuvent pas modifier sans permission du tribunal par raison valable après mariage(alinéa 2), et lorsqu'ils ne font pas de registre avant le mariage, ils ne peuvent pas s'opposer au successeur ou tiers(alinéa 4). Alors la plupart des époux se marient sans contrat pendant 48 ans depuis que code civil coréen est appliqué en 1960. En Coreé, le premier précédent que les époux ont registré leur convention matrimonial s'est présenté en 2001, maintenant il y a seulement 50 cas depuis da debut. La cause que la plupart des époux marient sans contrat de marriage est ci-dessous. Tout d'abord, les personnes ne connaîssent pas le régime conventional généralement. Puis en Coreé, il y a une atmosphère sociale que beaucoup de personnes sont sur la défensive à parler du contrat matrimonial entre futurs époux. Surtout, l'article 829 code civil coréen prescrit que les futurs époux ne peuvent rien modifier les droits ou les devoirs résultant du mariage. Désormais, je pense que'on doit reconnaître que les époux peut contracter ou rejeter la convention matrimonial et ils peuvent changer les contenus du contrat en mariage aussi par la revision de l'article 829 code civil coreén. Si nous considéron le contrat matrimonial enregisré pratiquement, nous pouvons savoir que les futurs époux ne reconnaissent pas que les contenus inutile et contraire au principe général ont remplits leur contrat matrimonial. C'est-à-dire, le contrat matrimonial est anti-juridique, parce que les futurs époux ne entrent pas en contact avec les contenus suffissant et la forme exacte. Bien plus, le juriste n'a pas fondé un contrat standard. Donc, je pense que le contrat matrimonial des époux doit remplir les contenus (1) de l'appartenance des leurs biens, (2) de l'administration, de l'usage, du profit, de la liquidation, (3) de la charge des obligations, (4) de la charge du coût de leur vie commune, (5) de la division des leurs biens en dissolution d'un mariage. Néanmoins, c'est irraisonal que l'article 829 code civil coréen prescript lorsqu'ils ne font pas de registre avant le mariage, ils ne peuvent pas s'opposer au successeur ou tiers(alinéa 4, alinéa 5 sur l'opposition du contrat changé). La reconnaissance de l'opposition du contrat matrimonial peut faire tort au bénéficie du tiers et la stabilité de la transaction. Parce que les futurs époux peuvent contracter toutes sortes des contenus dans le contrat matrimonial. Puis s'ils contractent que ce n'est plus

대리권 남용행위의 유형분석에 따른 법률관계 재검토

정상현(鄭相鉉)(Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2017 성균관법학 Vol.29 No.1

Bei Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht können aus Rechtshandlungen eines Vertreters keine Rechte gegen den Vertretenen hergeleitet werden, wenn der vertreter bewusst die Vollmacht zum Nachteil des Vertretenen missbraucht hat und der Dritte diesen Missbrauch gekannt hat oder hätte erkennen müssen. Die Einräumung einer bestimmten Vertretungsmacht, sei es durch den Vertretenen selbst, sei es durch die Satzung einer Körperschaft, sei es unmittelbar durch die Rechtsordnung in den Fällen der gesetzlichen Vertretung, soll den Vertreter dazu in den Stand setzen, die Interessen des Vertretenen, in einigen Fällen auch Interessen Dritter, im rechtsgeschäftlichen Verkehr mit Wirkung für den Vertretenen wahrzunehmen. Indessen kennt das Gesetz keine allgemeine Beschränkung der Vertretungsmacht dahingehend, dass diese jeweils nur so weit reicht, als der Vertreter von ihr einen pflichtgemässen Gebrauch macht. Anders als bei der Überschreitung der Vertretungsmacht hält sich der Vertreter bei ihrem Missbrauch im Rahmen der ihm erteilten Vertretungsmacht, beachtet jedoch nicht die ihm im Innenverhältnis zum Vertretenen für ihre Ausübung gezogenen Grenzen. Der Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht setzt voraus, dass die pflichtwidrige Nichtbeachtung der im Innenverhältnis bestehenden Bindung die Vertretungsmacht grundsätzlich unberührt lässt. Der Vertretene trägt grundsätzlich das Risko eines pflichtwidrigen Verhaltens des Vertreters. Eine gesetzliche Regelung fehlt. Durch die Grundsätze über den Missbrauch der Vertretungsmacht wird versucht, diese einseitige Riskobelastung im Rahmen einer sachgerechten Abwägung der Interessen des Geschäftsgegners und des Vertretenen unter Berücksichtigungren der beiderseits zurechenbaren Risken gerecht zu verteilen. Über dies Ziel besteht Einigkeit. Trotzdem sind die Auffassung im Einzelnen kontrovers und uneinheitlich. Unumstritten ist der Fall der Kollusion. Wenn Vertreter und Geschäftsgegner bewusst zum Nachteil des Vertretenen zusammenwirken, ist das Rechtsgeschäft gemäß §103 KBGB nichtig. Die Sittenwidrigkeit von kollusionen Zusatzabsprachen des Vertreters mit dem Geschäftsgegner, die hinter dem Rücken und zu Lasten des Vertretenen getroffen werden, wird in der Regel auch das Hauptgeschäft zwischen den Vertragsparteien erfassen. Vertreter und Geschäftspartner haften den Vertretenen jedenfalls gemäss §§750, 760 KBGB auf Schadensersatz, so dass einem Erfüllungsanspruch die Arglisteinrede entgegenstünde. Daneben kommen Ansprüche positiver Forderungsverletzung im Betracht. 대리행위의 성립요건과 유효요건이 모두 충족되었음에도 대리인의 대리권 남용행위에 대하여 본인에 대한 효과귀속을 차단하는 법리가 ‘대리권 남용이론’(Die Lehre des Missbrauches der Vertretungsmacht)이다. 대리인이 본인에게 효과를 귀속시킬 대리의사를 갖고 자신의 대리권 범위 내에서 대리행위를 하였으나, 그 속내가 본인이 아닌 대리인 자신 또는 상대방의 이익을 꾀하기 위한 것이고, 그러한 대리인의 배임적 의도를 상대방이 ‘알았거나 알 수 있었던’ 경우에는 본인에게 대리행위의 효과를 귀속시킬 수 없다는 것이다. 대리권이 없거나 그 범위를 넘은 무권대리(제135조)가 아니므로 대리행위의 효과는 본인에게 귀속되어야 하지만, 상대방의 악의 또는 (중)과실을 근거로 본인에 대한 대리행위의 효과귀속 자체를 차단시키기 위한 법률구성으로, 우리 민법학계의 공통된 인식에 근거 하고 있다.

土地去來許可區域 內의 土地收用과 收用補償金에 대한 買受人의 權利

정상현(鄭相鉉, Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.1

In general, the Korean Supreme Court affirms that a buyer has the right of claim on the substitutional compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation. Such a decision is recognized by the assumption that the sales contract is valid. But in this case, the object of sales contract is the land in the Area of Transaction by Permission. In Korea, for the restraint of speculative trade of real estate in particular area, Article 118 of Program and Utilization for National Land Development Act provides that one who shall buy or sell the land in particular area must acquire the permission of government. It also provides that the contract without such permission should be ineffective. The general view and judicial precedents have interpreted the Article on the basis of the Doctrine of Floating Void.1)Under this doctrine, a party could not demand to the other party the performance of the obligation, because prior to the permission, the contract does not carry it into effect. If the permission is granted, the contract shall be valid definitely. Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court does not recognize the buyer's right of claim on the compensation money based on expropriation. But I think that such attitudes of judicial precedents should be criticized in comparison with prior two decisions of the Supreme Court which the contract without permission should be ineffective and the buyer has a right of claim on the substitutional compensation money without legal sources in the expropriation. The following explains in detail. The first, the Supreme Court decides that the contract without permission in particular area should be ineffective, but it also decides that the contracting parties must cooperate for getting the permission as legal obligations.2)That is to say, it affirms that the parties of contract can not refuse the performance of cooperating obligation3)and the one party must pay for damages to the other party on the basis of non-performance of cooperating obligation.4)Moreover it decides that, as unjust enrichment, the one party cannot demand the repayment of the earnest money which he had payed to the other party on the time of contract.5)And it also decides that the permission of transaction is not the "permission" of trade prohibited by law but the "authorization" toward the effect of contract.6) However the Doctrine of Floating Void created by the Supreme Court cannot bar effectively any speculative trades, and moreover it is a theoretical repugnance. Because, while the Doctrine of Floating Void by the Supreme Court has the assumption which the contract without permission is null and void in particular area, the Supreme Court recognizes that the parties of contract have the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission, the refusal of repayment of the earnest money as unjust enrichment, and the regard the "permission" as the "authorization" on the basis of the validity of contract. Therefore it is appropriate view that the permission for transaction in special area should be the special condition for the transfer of property. I think that the contract without permission has a general validity if it meets the general qualifications, and the legal duty of cooperation for getting the permission ought to be recognized from the general validity of contract. Also I think that the contract carries it into effect definitely when the special condition is fulfilled, and therefore the obligations of contracting parties, such as payment and registration, are actualized by the acquisition of permission. The second, the Supreme Court decides that the buyer has the right of claim on the compensation money when the seller receives the money on the basis of expropriation.7)About the origin of the decision, the Supreme Court also decides that there is no reason to deny the buyer's right, even if the Korean Civil Code does not provide the right. But, for grant a legal right to th

영미 계약법에 있어서 불법계약의 효력과 급부물의 반환청구

정상현(鄭相鉉)(Jung, Sang Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.2

I wrote this article at George Washington College of American University in Washington D. C. during my sabbatical year, 2011-2012. At that time, I had concern for the maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio in common law. I intend to introduce the effect of illegal contracts and that maxim to ours. English writers commonly say that a contract may be illegal in four distinct ways. In the first place, a contract may be illegal in respect of the vary act of making it. All contracts the making of which is thus prohibited by law are for this reason and in this sense illegal contract, and are commonly void accordingly. In the second place, a contract may be illegal in respect of the performance of it. That is to say, it may consist of or involve an undertaking to do an unlawful or immoral act, and for this reason the contract itself is commonly void. However, a contract is not illegal and void merely because its performance would amount to the breach by one of the parties of prior and inconsistent contract made by him with some third person. In the third place, a contract may be illegal and void because made for an unlawful or immoral consideration. When the consideration is executory, this case is identical with illegality in performance. Fourthly, a contract may be illegal and void in respect of the ulterior purpose or object of one or both of the parties in entering into that contract. In such case if the wrongful purpose of the one party is known to the other the contract is illegal and void. In common law, contracts are affected by illegality into a number of classes. One object of this classification is to make it possible to generalize about the effects of illegality, another object is purely expository. Various criteria have been used for the purpose of classifying the cases. The first criterion is the nature of the objectionable conduct. They classified the cases into those where the contract was contrary to positive law, those where it was contrary to morals or good manners, and those where it was contrary to public policy. The main difficulty with it is that the second category of contracts contrary to morals or good manners is hard to define and that is may overlap with the third. It can be argued that public policy is the ground for invalidating all contracts affected by illegality, so that the third category includes the other two. A second possible criterion for classification is the formal source of the invalidation rule, which may be derived from common law or from statue. But the distinction is not decisive where the illegality consists in the making or performance of the contract. The third, classification may proceed by the legal consequences of the contracts concerned. Thus a writer distinguished between ‘illegal contract’ and ‘nugatory contracts’, and the same classification has been adopted by later writers who distinguished between ‘illegal contract’ and ‘void contracts’. The maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio has no application to a nugatory contract, but applies exclusively to those which are illegal. A contract which is void for illegality, and therefore not binding on either of the parties, may nevertheless be in fact performed in whole or in part by one or both of them. In an illegal contract for the sale and purchase of goods the seller may deliver the goods. Is the seller entitled to get the goods back on the ground that the contract is void? In other words, what right of restitution exists as between the parties to an illegal contract? The general answer is that no such right exists. The rights of parties are governed by a special rule formulated in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio. This maxim as to turpis causa is otherwise expressed in the saying, in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. An illegal contract is a turpis causa within the meaning of this principle.

친권자에 의한 배임적 대리행위와 제3자 보호에 관한 판례 재검토 - 대법원 2018. 4. 26. 선고 2016다3201 판결 -

정상현(Jung, Sang-Hyun),박석일(Park, Seok-Il) 한국법학원 2020 저스티스 Vol.- No.178

대상판결이 취하는 태도는 대리권 남용행위에 대하여 비진의표시에 관한 민법 제107조 제1항 단서를 유추적용하고, 이를 기초로 새롭게 이해관계를 맺은 선의의 제3자에 대하여 동조 제2항을 유추적용한다. 그런데 대리권 남용행위 자체는 비진의표시가 아니므로 대리권 남용행위에 관하여 민법 제107조 제1항 단서를 ‘유추적용’하는 것은 유추의 한계를 넘어선 것이다. 대리권 남용행위가 비진의표시가 아니라는 것은 하나의 사실(fact)이고, 대리권 남용행위의 효과귀속을 부정하기 위하여 민법 제107조 제1항 단서를 유추적용하는 것은 법률상 의제(fiction)이다. 그럼에도 대리권 남용행위에 기초하여 새롭게 이해관계를 맺은 제3자를 보호하기 위한 논리구성에조차 민법 제107조 제2항을 ‘유추적용’하는 것은 사실과 법률상 의제를 혼돈한 것이다. 나아가 실제로도 대리권 남용행위에 기초하여 새롭게 이해관계를 맺은 제3자에게 민법 제107조 제2항을 유추적용한 결과는 상대적으로 본인에게 지나친 불이익을 입히는 것으로 타당하지 않다. 일반적인 법률행위에서 비진의 표시를 한 자는 선의의 제3자가 있는 경우 그 제3자에게 대항할 수 없는 불이익을 입을 수 있다. 이러한 불이익은 당사자 스스로 비진의표시를 하였기 때문에 지는 책임으로 보면 당연한 결과이다. 그리고 대리인에 의하여 비진의 표시가 이루어진 경우에도 제3자의 존재로 본인이 불이익을 입는 것은 민법 제116조 제1항에 따른 결과이므로 이 역시 수긍된다. 또한 대리권 남용행위에 의한 것이라도 민법 제107조 제1항 단서의 유추적용에 그치는 경우는 대리행위의 효과가 발생하지 않으므로 본인에게는 이익도 불이익도 아니다. 그러나 대리권 남용행위에 선의의 제3자에 대한 민법 제107조 제2항을 유추적용하면, 본인은 비진의표시도 아닌 대리권 남용행위의 무효로 선의의 제3자에게 대항하지 못하게 되어 그 대리행위의 효과를 감수해야 하는 불이익을 입을 수 있다. 대리권 남용행위에 대해서는 본인에 대한 효과귀속을 부정할 미충족 요건이 없으므로, 그 효과귀속을 인정한 상태에서 법률관계를 재구성하는 편이 낫다고 생각한다. 다만 대리권 남용행위의 효과를 본인에게 귀속시킨다면 본인이 손해를 입을 가능성이 크다. 이러한 손해를 전보하기 위하여 대리인에게는 기초적인 내부관계로서 위임 등의 계약에 위반한 채무불이행책임과 불법행위에 근거한 손해배상책임을 지우고, 상대방에게도 불법행위에 기한 손해배상책임을 지울 수 있다. 이와 같이 손해배상청구와 별도로 본인에게 대리권 남용행위의 효과귀속을 인정하면, 이를 기초로 새롭게 이해관계를 맺은 제3자는 선의와 악의를 묻지 않고 당연히 보호될 수 있다. The reason for the development of proxy abuse theory is that the agent has destroyed trust in himself and is hurting his principal. In the systematically established modern civil law theory, the abuse of proxy is logically entitled proxy. Therefore, there is no logical and rational reason which will not be attributed to the effect of the surrogate act, for the abuse of surrogate acts that should be identified as a surrogate proxy. It is true that if there is abuse of proxy rights, there is a high possibility of criticism of the agent and the other party. In particular, in the case of a agent handed over to proxy, it cannot be concluded that he or she is not responsible for appointing an unbelievable agent and entrusting the work. Even if it is a proxy act that abuses the proxy, it is a proxy act in the state of having a legal proxy. If there is no flaw in the requirements for the agency to be effective, it is not easy to construct a theory to block the effect of the legal action on the principal. If so, I think it makes sense to acknowledge the attribution of effect to the principal, even if there was abuse of proxy rights. However, since the agent abused the proxy and the other person knew or could know it, I think it is better to reconstruct the legal relationship based on their fault. Of course, if the effect of abuse on behalf of the agent occurs on the principal, it is clear that he suffers damages. At this time, in order to compensate for his damages, agents are liable for damages under the mandate and torts. And the other party of agent is responsible for torts. They are jointly liable for damages to the principal. Abuse of proxy rights is not a sign differently than his think, so it is unfair for the ruling presented above to “apply analogously” to the provisions of Article 107 (2) of the Korean Civil Code. Nevertheless, in order to protect third parties with new interests on the basis of acts of abuse of proxy rights, it is a confusion of facts and legal agendas to “apply analogously” Article 107 (2) of the KCC again. It is a fact that proxy abuse is not a sign of secret. In order to deny the attribution of the agency effect by abuse of proxy rights, it is a legal agenda to apply the Article 107 (1) of the Civil Code. It is not logical and rational to make a double agenda to a third party in good faith by analogy applying Article 107 (2) on the basis of the legal effect already set.

不動産 名義信託法理의 基礎 序說

정상현(Jung Sang-Hyun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2005 성균관법학 Vol.17 No.2

The nominal trust theory of real estate is originally developed through the judicial precedents. Especially, under the rule of Japanese imperialism, the clan could not register the real estate with its own name, because it had not a judicial personality. Therefore a real estate of the clan must had been registered in the name of its a member or members. By the way, many disputes took place in relation to clan's properties, for the reason that the nominal member disposed the property without the permission of the whole members. For the purpose of a solution to those problem, judicial precedents had contrived a following new theory. This theory is that both parties of agreement compose with two parts ownership on the real estate, that is to say, the internal ownership and the external ownership. The internal ownership is held by a nominal truster who is registered in his own name, and external ownership is granted to nominal trustee who possess the property substantially. And even though the nominal trustee, as external owner, dispose of the object to the another person without the internal owner's permission, the another person can acquire the ownership of the object valid. Merely in era of Japanese imperialism, the judicial precedents judged erroneously that this theory had consisted as a general principle of law in Korea. But that theory had existed neither in Korea nor in Japan. On the contrary it had been abused to destroy the ground of clan's property by the government of Japanese imperialism. By the way, more serous problem is that the theory is maintained by judicial precedents at the present time. It carries on false transaction deed and its application to the large extent brings about many legal problems in the modern era, such as land speculation, tax dodging and evading law, etc. Expecially, the theory of nominal trust and the intermediate abbreviated registration are not conformed to the formalistic registration system of Korean civil law. Therefore Korean government revised the partial provision of the act of inheritance tax(1974), and legislated the act of special measures of registration(1990) in order to eliminate unconformed registration, and the act of substantial named registration(1995) to restrain from unlawful agreement by nominal trust. Consequently, this paper dealt with following points at issue. That is to say, the history and legal background of nominal trust theory, the rearrangement of various types on the nominal trust agreement, and the analysis on contents of the act of substantial named registration(1995) under the topic of present legal problems and betterment on the future, etc. Together with those points, there are still existent the problems on the effect of nominal trust agreement and on the return of nominal entrusted properties. Merely, these problems will be dealt through the my another paper.