부동산담보신탁에서 수익권의 법적 성질

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Security trusts in Korea have been growing along with a proliferating project financing market that was introduced in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s. Security trusts offer a number of benefits. Creditors, first, can have their business funds managed by trustworthy and discerning trust companies(trustee), and keep their
bonds more securely as they are protected against the risks of insolvency in developers(truster) or trust companies(trustee).
Security trusts are essentially collaterals, and therefore may warrant some comparison to the right to security. Security trusts, in fact, support stronger claims (of beneficiaries) to collaterals than the right to security, not because the collaterals involved in the former entail more powerful claims on the part of the collateral holder, but because the trust law has the effect of prioritizing the collateral holder’s interest over the collateral provider’s. In
a security trust, the truster transfers the title to the property to the trustee, making the trustee the owner of the trusted property. The Trust Act, however, requires that the trustee keep and manage the trusted property in separation from the trustee’s other assets.
It is this independence of the trusted property that enables the beneficiaries to exert their claims in case the trustee goes bankrupt and becomes subjected to the rehabilitation procedure. In other words, the trust act’s requirement to protect beneficiaries against insolvency in effect strengthens their claims to trusted properties.
One of the key issues concerning security trusts is the nature of beneficiaries’ rights involved. Some view these rights as deriving the right to security involved, while others view these rights as contingent upon the trusts. France, a country in the continental law tradition, separates security trusts from its trust law. The United States, a common-law
country, views security trusts as collaterals and not as trusts. Considering the convergence between these two very different legal traditions on the nature of security trusts, the Korean judiciary and legal practitioners may be inclined to conclude that beneficiaries’ rights involved in security trusts derive from the security trusts being collaterals. Nevertheless, the current Korean trust act and judicial practices still have a long way to go before defining the nature of security trusts once and for all as a form of the right to security. For now, the Korean judiciary and legal practitioners consider security trusts as trusts, and should consider them in relation to other forms of trusts.
The majority consensus in the Korean legal community—backed by court precedents—is that security trusts guarantee beneficiaries’ rights as rights to bonds.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 서울중앙지방법원 파산부 실무연구회, "회생사건실무(상)" 2008

2 정태윤, "프랑스 신탁법" 한국비교사법학회 19 (19): 941-1004, 2012

3 광장신탁법연구회, "주석 신탁법" 박영사 2013

4 함대영, "신탁형 자산유동화에서의 진정양도 판단 - 민법과 신탁법의 교차영역에 대한 고찰의 일환" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (44) : 2010

5 김동근, "신탁재산의 증권화에 관한 연구 - 담보신탁과 담보권신탁을 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 30 (30): 37-64, 2014

6 김성필, "신탁재산의 법률관계" 한국민사법학회 (17) : 1999

7 안성포, "신탁재산의 권리주체성에 관한 소고" 부설법학연구소 39 : 69-95, 2013

8 가정준, "신탁인 듯 신탁 아닌 ‘부동산담보신탁’" 법학연구소 36 (36): 553-574, 2016

9 이계정, "신탁의 기본 법리에 관한 연구-본질과 독립재산성" 서울대학교 2016

10 정순섭, "신탁법의 쟁점(제2권)" 소화 2015

11 정순섭, "신탁법의 쟁점(제1권)" 소화 2015

12 임채웅, "신탁법연구2" 박영사 2011

13 임채웅, "신탁법연구" 박영사 2009

14 이주현, "신탁법상의 신탁계약을 체결하면서 담보 목적으로 채권자를 수익권자로 지정한 경우 그수익권이 정리계획에 의하여 소멸되는 정리담보권인지 여부" (42) : 2002

15 이연갑, "신탁법상 신탁의 구조와 수익자 보호에 관한 비교법적 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2009

16 이연갑, "신탁법상 수익자 보호의 법리" 경인문화사 2014

17 김상용, "신탁법 해설" 법무부 2012

18 법무부, "신탁법 개정안 해설"

19 이중기, "신탁법" 삼우사 2007

20 한민, "신탁과 도산법 문제" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (17) : 2006

21 신영수, "부동산신탁의 쟁점" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (62) : 2013

22 남동희, "부동산신탁의 위탁자에 대한 회생절차의 실무상 쟁점" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 121-169, 2011

23 고일광, "부동산신탁에 관한 회생절차상 취급 - 부동산담보신탁의 경우를 중심으로 -" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 59-117, 2009

24 김상용, "부동산담보신탁제도개발의 필요성과 법적문제점 검토" 한국경영법률학회 5 : 1992

25 장현옥, "부동산담보신탁에 관한 연구" 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 10 : 1998

26 양진섭, "부동산담보신탁에 관한 소고" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (52) : 2012

27 張賢玉, "부동산 신탁에 관한 연구" 延世大學校 大學院 1998

28 한상곤, "부동산 담보신탁의 수익권에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 49 (49): 3-38, 2014

29 곽윤직, "물권법" 박영사 2002

30 김재형, "도산절차에서 담보권자의 지위" 대한변호사협회 (356) : 2008

31 전병서, "도산법" 문우사 2016

32 임채웅, "도산격리의 연구" 한국민사소송법학회 12 (12): 422-463, 2008

33 임채웅, "담보신탁의 연구" 대한변호사협회 (378) : 115-132, 2008

34 이혜원, "담보신탁과 도산절연성" 서울대학교 2014

35 金聖弼, "信託法理의 私法的 體系化에 관한 硏究" 漢陽大學校 大學院 1997

36 Scott, Austin W, "The Progress of the Law: Trust" 33 : 688-, 1920

37 Matthews, Paul, "The French Fiducie: And Now for Something Completely Different" 21 : 17-, 2007

38 "Restatement (Third) of Trust"

39 Hanbury, "Modern Equity" Sweet&Maxwell 2012

40 Chambaz, Laurent, "Is France adopting trusts wholesale? The answer is no, But" 13 : 1-, 2007