쌍방미이행 쌍무계약에서 도산해지조항에 관한 연구 -최근 입법의 비교법적 연구를 중심으로- = A Study on Insolvency Termination Clauses in Executory Contracts -Focusing on Recent Comparative Legal Studies of Legislation-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If an insolvency termination clause is provided in case the other party to the contract commences insolvency proceedings, an issue arises as to whether it can be exercised in the insolvency process. However, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRBA’) does not explicitly provide for this. And because there are no established precedents or theories, it is difficult to predict the results. Recently, major countries have completed legislation on the effect of bankruptcy termination provisions in bankruptcy procedures, and this article reviews this and proposes a plan to establish related provisions in the DRBA.
First of all, the United States already has provisions in the U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Act that limit the effect of bankruptcy termination provisions throughout the bankruptcy process and recognize certain exceptions. The United Kingdom, which previously recognized the effect of insolvency termination clauses in principle, recently enacted regulations limiting the effect of insolvency termination clauses in essential goods or service contracts through a law amendment in 2020. Germany recently legislated regulations that, in principle, limit the effect of insolvency termination provisions, reflecting the EU directive. France has sequentially stipulated throughout the statutory insolvency procedure provisions that limit the effect of insolvency termination clauses as a prerequisite to the administrator’s exercise of the performance option for contracts that are already ongoing. Japan, like us, does not have any related written regulations. Therefore, in terms of interpretation, there are conflicting theories as to whether to limit its effect in bankruptcy procedures and whether to limit its effect in liquidation-type bankruptcy procedures.
Accordingly, in consideration of the purpose of the bankruptcy system, this article proposes that the DRBA stipulate that the effect of the bankruptcy termination clause in an executory contract during the period of bankruptcy proceedings, but allow certain exceptions. Also, by referring to other legislative examples such as the UK and France, the introduction of a mechanism to protect creditors, who are counterparties to transactions, could be considered. It is proposed that the regulations limiting the effect of these bankruptcy termination provisions be the same in bankruptcy procedures as well as rehabilitation procedures.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 A wohl Heckschen, 2020

2 Thole, 1995-, 2020

3 Kl upsch, 2017

4 Nerlich, 47 : 2023

5 Römermann, 2013

6 임선지, "｢쌍방미이행 쌍무계약에서 도산해지조항에 관한 연구-최근 입법의 비교법적 연구를 중심으로-｣에 대한 토론문" 한국법학원 2023

7 서울중앙지방법원 파산부 실무연구회, "회생사건실무(상)" 박영사 2014

8 오수근, "판례실무연구 Ⅸ" 박영사 2010

9 김대인, "채무자회생법의 공법상 계약에의 적용에 대한 고찰-대법원 2021. 5. 6. 선고 2017다273441 전원합의체 판결에 대한 평석-" 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 26 (26): 2021

10 권순일, "주석 채무자회생법(IV)" 한국사법행정학회 2021

11 권순일, "주석 채무자회생법(II)" 한국사법행정학회 2021

12 한민, "미이행 쌍무계약에 관한 우리 도산법제의 개선방향" 법무부 2011

13 권영준, "도산해지조항의 효력" 한국비교사법학회 25 (25): 2018

14 황인용, "도산해지조항의 실무" 2018

15 김성용, "도산조항의 효력" 사법발전재단 (4) : 2008

16 이화여자대학교 산학협력단, "도산제도의 현대적 과제 연구(I) -도산실체법의 개선방안-" 법무부 2019

17 오민석, "도산관계소송" 한국사법행정학회 2009

18 임선지, "공법상 계약과 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약의 해지권-대법원 2021. 5. 6. 선고 2017다273441 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-" 법제처 700 : 2023

19 伊藤 眞, "講演　片務契約および一方履行済みの双務契約と倒産手続（特集　東京三弁護士会（倒産法部）シンポジウム　倒産と契約　現代的課題の解決․倒産法改正を見据えて（３）" 商事法務 (1057) : 2015

20 小林信明, "論点解説 新破産法<上>" きんざい 2005

21 伊藤 眞, "破産法․民事再生法" 有斐閣 2011

22 松下淳一, "民事再生法" 有斐閣 2009

23 竹下守夫, "昭和57年度民事主要判例解説(判タ505号臨増)" 判例タイムズ社 1983

24 富永浩明, "新·裁判実務大系〔全28巻] 新破産法" 靑林書院 2007

25 松永 崇, "倒産手続における契約条項の効力～契約文言どおりの効力が生じるとは限りません～"

26 松田安正, "リースの理論と実務" 商事法務研究会 1987

27 加々美博久, "〔第１部〕パネルディスカッション従来型契約と倒産法（特集　 東京三弁護士会（倒産法部）シンポジウム　 倒産と契約　現代的課題の解決․倒産法改正を見据えて(１))" 商事法務 (1054) : 2015

28 J. Ripert, "Traité de droit commercial, t. 2" LGDJ 2004

29 Fabrice Robert-Tissot, "The Effects of a Reorganization on (Executory) Contracts : A Comparative Law and Policy Study [United States, France, Germany and Switzerland]" 21 : 2012

30 Nerlich, "StaRUG § 55"

31 Pannen, "StaRUG § 49"

32 Uhlenbruck, "StaRUG § 44"

33 Nerlich, "StaRUG § 44"

34 Pannen, "StaRUG § 44"

35 HambKom-RestR, "StaRUG"

36 Flöther, "Spliedt St aRUG § 44 Rn. 5；Desch"

37 "Senate Report no. 95-989"

38 The National Bankruptcy Review Commission, "Report of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, October 20, 1997, Volume Ⅰ" 464-, 1997

39 F. Derrida, "Redressement et liquidation judiciaires desentreprises" Dalloz 1991

40 P. Pétel, "Procédures collectives" Cours Dalloz 2018

41 Timothy Cleary, "Perpetuating Uncertainty : The Anti-Deprivation Principle and Contractual Rights in the Post-Lehman World" 20 : 185-218, 2011

42 "Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 3d Database updated April 2013 § 46 : 22 (2 Norton Bankr. L. & Prac. 3d § 46 : 22)"

43 "New Schedule 4ZZA to the Insolvency Act 1986"

44 V.J. Vallansan, "La difficile application du livre VI du Code de commerce à la personne physique" 2010

45 Jocelyne Vallansan, "Juris Classeur Commercial" 2023

46 Graf-Schlicker, "InsO"

47 "IRECTIVE (EU) 2019/1023 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency)"

48 "H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 348 (1977)"

49 V. P.-M. Le Corre, "Droit et pratique des procédures collectives：Dalloz Action 2019-2020. le contrat qui laisse subsister des effets essentiels"

50 Ali Shalchi, "Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020"

51 Samuel Williston, "Contracts § 14 (3d ed. 1957), Vern Countryman, “Executory (pt. Ⅰ)”" 57 : 439-, 1973

52 "Collier on Bankruptcy" 2000

53 "Braun StaRUG"

54 "BeckOK StaRUG"

55 "BT-Drs. 19/24181, 147"

56 "BGB § 490"

57 Gehrlein, "BB 2021, 66 (75)"