변제ㆍ대물변제의 사해성 판단 기준에 관한 고찰 ― 일본 개정민법을 중심으로 ― = A Study on What are the Elements to Establish Fraudulent Transfer for Preferential Transfers ― Focusing on the Revised Japanese Civil Code ―

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Supreme Court has held that the originally intended performance by the debtor can be revoked exceptionally only when there is a conspiratorial fraudulent intention between the debtor and the transferee, while it ruled that the payment by substitutes(accord and satisfaction in Civil Code) shall be revoked in principle because the conspiratorial fraudulent agreement between the debtor and transferee can be easily found when making an agreement of payment by substitutes. However, it is unfair that whether or not there was a conspiratorial agreement between the debtor and the transferee is regarded as the decisive criteria in judging whether or not the fraudulent transfer was made, especially in the event the lawsuit of fraudulent transfer revocation is a dispute between creditors of the debtor. In particular, considering that the rulings of the Supreme Court on what is the conspiratorial fraudulent intention have been uncertain and it is very rare that the originally intended performance was revoked for that reason in both of Korea and Japan, the element of the conspiratorial fraudulent intention required by the courts to revoke the preferential transfer seems not to play the proper role as a norm. In addition, in case of payment by substitutes, I think that creditor's right to revoke should be denied in principle based on the facts that the conspiracy between the debtor and the transferee cannot be the decisive criteria for the revocation of the preferential transfer, and there is no decline in the debtor's asset even in the case of the payment by substitutes as in the case of the originally intended performance. Also, I think it is important to try not to shrink the trade with the debtor in economic crisis by clearly specifying the requirement and effect of revocation in relation with the preferential transfer. Therefore it is considered to be desirable that the revised Japanese Civil Code specified the revocation requirements for the preferential transfer. The revised Japanese Civil Code found out the rational basis for the revocation of the preferential transfer on the fact that the debtor was already in the state of default of payment when he has performed the juristic act which has property right for its subject. I think this way of thinking can be adopted in Korea as well because the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act stipulates the requirements of the right to avoid in a very similar way to the Japanese Bankruptcy Law. If all the preferential transfers after the default of payment are determined to be the fraudulent transfer, it may hinder the business rehabilitation of the debtor. Therefore it is necessary to further strengthen the requirements for the revocation of the preferential transfer than those of the right to avoid under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. And I suggest that the additional subjective requirement for revocation, that is, the requirement that both of the debtor and the transferee are aware of the fact that the debtor is under the default of payment and the preferential transfer causes damage to any rehabilitation creditors or any rehabilitation secured creditor at the time that such act is performed, should be stipulated, in order to draw flexible conclusions according to the individual cases. If the existing case law is stipulated as an additional requirement for the preferential transfer revocation as in Japan, it is desirable to put an presumption regulation by which the conspiratorial fraudulent intention between the debtor and the transferee can be deemed in certain cases where the debtor and the transferee seems obvious to maliciously conspire.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김증한, "채권총론" 박영사 2007

2 이은영, "채권총론" 박영사 2009

3 곽윤직, "채권총론" 박영사 2014

4 양창수, "채권자취소권의 피보전채권과 사해행위" 고시계사 36 (36): 1991

5 이계정, "채권자취소권의 주관적 요건으로서의 사해의사에 관한 연구" 법원도서관 40 : 2005

6 김욱곤, "채권자취소권의 요건론 재고" 한국법학원 33 (33): 2000

7 조남대, "채권자취소권의 대상으로 사해행위에 관한 고찰" 대법원법원행정처 28 : 1997

8 고경우, "채권자취소권의 객관적 요건으로서의 사해성과 사해행위의 유형별 고찰" 부산판례연구회 20 : 2009

9 김재형, "채권자취소권에 관한 민법개정안 - 개정안에 관한 기본구상과 민법개정위원회의 논의 과정을 중심으로 -" 한국민사법학회 68 : 43-121, 2014

10 이순동, "채권자 취소권" 육법사 2017

11 주선아, "일부 채권자에게 기존채무의 이행과 관련하여 다른 채권을 양도하는 경우의 사해성 판단 -대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2011다28045 판결-" 민사판례연구회 (35) : 207-262, 2013

12 사법연수원, "요건사실론"

13 신지혜, "사해행위취소권에 관한 일본 개정 민법상 쟁점과 시사점" 한국민사법학회 83 : 69-129, 2018

14 김미리, "사해행위의 판단 기준과 대물변제의 사해성 판단(2010. 9. 30. 선고 2007다2718 판결: 공 2010하, 1967)" 법원도서관 (85) : 2010

15 정길룡, "변제 대물변제의 사해행위 해당 여부에 관한 판례와 재판실무" 대구판례연구회 10 : 2001

16 김명숙, "민법학강의" 신조사 2015

17 곽윤직, "민법주해(IX)" 박영사 2002

18 송덕수, "민법강의" 박영사 2014

19 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2020

20 최준규, "물적담보 제공행위의 사해성 판단 기준" 법학연구소 33 (33): 261-291, 2016

21 서동천, "대물변제의 사해성 판단에 대한 검토-대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2007다2718판결을 중심으로-" 건국대학교 법학연구소 (6) : 2011

22 潮見圭男, "詳解 改正民法" 商事法務 2018

23 飯原一乗, "詐害行為取消訴訟" 日本評論社 2017

24 下森定, "詐害行為取消権に関する近時の学説展開と債権法改正" 110 (110): 2013

25 西村真人, "詐害行為取消権(上)" (1345) : 2011

26 下森定, "著作集 I" 信山社 2014

27 潮見佳男, "法律学の森" 信山社 2017

28 我妻榮, "民法講義IV" 岩波書店 1964

29 商事法務, "民法(債権関係)部会資料集第2集〈第3巻(上)"

30 法制審議會民法(債権関係)部會, "民法(債権関係)の改正に関する要綱案のたたき台(7)(部会資料73A)"

31 佐藤岩昭, "日本民法学の形成と課題:星野英一先生古稀祝賀(上)" 有斐閣 1996

32 第一東京弁護士会 司法制度調査委員, "新日本法規" 2015

33 原恵美, "弁済の詐害行為性" 90 (90): 2018

34 山本和彦, "基調講演民法(債権法)改正と倒産法" (1130) : 2018

35 이재열, "債權者取消權의 要件에 대한 再解釋－ 相關關係論에 따른 解釋을 중심으로 －" 한국민사법학회 (41) : 161-202, 2008

36 서인겸, "債權者取消權에서 債權者인 受益者의 保護에 관한 考察" 법조협회 59 (59): 45-81, 2010

37 下森定, "債権者取消権の判例綜合解說" 信山社 2010

38 中舎寛樹, "債権法(債権総論, 契約)" 日本評論社 2018

39 森田修, "債権回収法講義" 有斐閣 2011

40 我妻栄, "コンメンタール民法(総則物権債権)" 日本評論社 2018

41 김문관, "「기존 금전채무의 변제에 갈음하여 다른 금전채권을 양도한 경우 원칙적으로 사해성을 부정한 종전 법리」에 대한 변명 - 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고2011다28045 판결 -" 부산판례연구회 24 : 2013

42 법무부, "2013년 법무부 민법개정시안(조문편)" 2013

43 김재형, "2010년도 민법 판례 동향" 민사실무연구회 20 : 2011