채권자대위소송과 추심소송에 있어 당사자적격에 대한 비교 검토

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In matters pertaining to the obligor, obligee and secondary obligee, a collection claim and an obligor's subrogation claim are systems that allow the obligor to directly pursue collection against the third obligee. Regarding money receivable, however, the two are different in that a collection claim is a procedure for exercising rights (Article 249, Civil Execution Law) wherein the obligor files a lawsuit for performance on the second receivable against the third obligee based on the collection rights obtained through seizure of the rights to the second receivable held by the obligee against the third obligee and using the means of executive title on the first receivable that already exists between the obligor and the obligee. On the other hand,an obligor’s subrogation claim is a substantial law (Article 404, Civil Law)in which the obligor directly seeks the execution of the second receivable against the third obligee, regardless of the status of the executive title on the first receivable between the obligor and the obligee.
In the precedents set by the Supreme Court, however, although the right to bring a lawsuit or the qualification to be a party is recognized for both the obligor and the obligee regarding the obligor’s subrogation claim, only that of the collection obligor is recognized regarding the collection claim.
If the obligee, who is in reality the obligor, cannot exercise the right to bring a lawsuit against the third obligee because the right to bring a lawsuit is not recognized for the obligee in a collection claim, then in case the collection obligor loses in a collection claim due to insufficient burden of proof, the damages must inevitably be sustained by the obligee due to the expanding efficacy of the judgment. Furthermore, if the obligee’s right to bring a lawsuit is recognized even after the collection order, that is favorable to the collection obligor because the obligor can be invested with the succeeded execution clause and use the efficacy of that ruling to easily carry out a compulsory execution against the third obligee. The third obligee can also appeal the collection order and avoid the danger of a double payment.
If there are double or duplicate lawsuits between the collection obligor and obligee, then it will be said that they can be processed by adhering to the rules of intervention or takeover of litigation, and that those cases do not have to be dismissed due to any lack of qualification to be a party.
Accordingly, it would be valid for the Supreme Court’s precedents to be changed, and for the qualification to be a party to be recognized for both the collection obligor and obligee in a collection claim, just as in an obligor’s subrogation claim.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조관행, "추심명령에 의한 추심에 관한 제문제" 법원행정처 1985

2 손진홍, "추심명령에 관한 제 문제, In 재판실무연구(2) 민사집행소송" 재판실무연구(2) 민사집행소송 2008

3 김상용, "채권총론" 화산미디어 2009

4 범경철, "채권자대위소송의 실질적 보장과 중복소송" 법학연구소 45 (45): 95-124, 2010

5 호문혁, "채권자대위소송에 있어서의 피보전채권과 당사자적격" 박영사 12 : 1998

6 원유석, "채권자대위소송에 있어서 피보전채권의 존부에 대한 판단기준" 박영사 (22) : 2002

7 호문혁, "채권자대위소송과 중복제소" 박영사 (15) : 1994

8 이동율, "채권자대위소송과 법정소송담당" 2 (2): 1999

9 김형배, "채권자대위권제도의 재검토(I)" 1986

10 김득현, "채권가압류 또는 채권압류 및 추심명령이 있는 경우의 법률관계에 관하여" 법조협회 50 (50): 2001

11 김상원, "주석민사집행법(Ⅳ)" 한국사법행정학회 2004

12 "주석 강제집행법(Ⅱ)"

13 이백규, "압류된 채권양수인의 이행청구와 추심명령" 박영사 (24) : 2002

14 남기정, "실무 강제집행법(채권 기타 재산권)" 육법사 1984

15 이시윤, "신정판 민사소송법" 박영사 2002

16 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2011

17 정영환, "신민사소송법" 세창출판사 2009

18 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2010

19 "법원실무제요 강제집행(하)" 법원행정처 1993

20 오시영, "민사집행법" 학현사 2007

21 전병서, "민사소송법연습[제4판]" 법문사 2007

22 이영섭, "민사소송법(상)" 박영사 1980

23 호문혁, "민사소송법 제9판" 법문사 2011

24 오시영, "민사소송법" 학현사 2004

25 강현중, "민사소송법" 박영사 2004

26 김용진, "민사소송법" 신영사 2006

27 김홍규, "민사소송법" 삼영사 2010

28 김홍엽, "민사소송법" 박영사 2011

29 박익환, "민사소송법" 박영사 2008

30 전병서, "기본강의 민사소송법" 홍문사 2010

31 박용표, "금전채권에 대한 채권가압류와 채권양도. 추심명령과 채권양도가 소송절차에서 경합하는 경우의 법률관계 - 대법원 2000. 4. 11. 선고 99다23888판결" 부산판례연구회 2002

32 박종규, "국세징수법상 채권압류의 효력" 법원행정처 1987

33 鈴木忠一, "注解民事執行法强制執行(4)" 有斐閣 1997

34 菊井維大, "民事訴訟法(二)" 有斐閣 1964

35 宮脇幸彦, "强制執行法(各論" 法律學全集 1978

36 兼子一, "增補 强制執行法" 酒井書店 1979

37 오창수, "債權者代位訴訟의 실천적 의미 - 당사자의 지위 및 소송요건을 중심으로" 법과정책연구소 16 (16): 125-167, 2010

38 野村守民, "債權差押聚立命令が效力を生じた後差押債務者は當該債權について給付燒送又は確認訴訟を追行できるか(給付訴訟につき消極, 確認訴訟につき積極)" 日本評論社 (1055) : 1982