미국 부당이득법의 과거와 현재 -제1차 Restatement부터 제3차 Restatement까지- = Past and Present of the US Law of Unjust Enrichment -From the Restatement (First) of the Law of Restitution to the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment-

국문 초록 (Abstract)

제1차 원상회복법 Restatement가 부당이득이 계약, 불법행위와 다른 독자적인 책임발생원인이라는 사고를 영미법권 전체에 확대하는 데 크게 공헌하였다면, 제3차 원상회복·부당이득법 Restatement는 미국뿐만 아니라 코먼웰스 국가들의 부당이득법에 관한 학문적 발전을 반영하였다는 점에서 영미 부당이득법학 발전사의 하나의 milestone이라고 평가할 수 있다. 특히 제3차 Restatement는 일반원칙(General Principles), 원상회복의 책임(Liability in Restitution), 구제(Remedies), 원상회복에 대한 항변(Defenses to Restitution)의 순서로 규율하고 있으며, 전체적으로 대륙법적인 사고를 수용하였다는 점에서 유럽사법의 통일화와 밀접한 연관을 가지고 있다. 제3차 Restatement에서 주목할만한 특징을 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 제3차 Restatement 제1조는 `정당한 법적 근거의 부존재`를 기준으로 이득의 부당성을 판단한다. 둘째, 제3차 Restatement 제2편은 책임발생 사례를 유형화하여 성립요건과 효과를 다르게 접근하고 있는데, 이는 대륙법상 유형론이 취하는 입장과 유사하다. 셋째, 제3차 Restatement는 위법행위에 대한 원상회복(restitution for wrong)을 부당이득법으로 포섭하고 원고의 손실(expence)요건을 매우 넓은 의미로 이해하여 위법행위에 대한 원상회복(restitution for wrong)의 발생요건으로 손실의 발생요건을 무의미하게 만들었다. 넷째, 제3차 Restatement는 위법행위에 대한 원상회복의 경우 등에서 객관적 가치를 초과하는 이득의 토출(disgorgement)을 인정한다. 다섯째, 제3차 Restatement는 보통법상의 제도(준계약: quasi-contract)와 Equity상의 제도(주로 의제신탁: constructive trust)를 통일적으로 규정하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article compares past and present of the US Law of Unjust Enrichment. It will principally summarize the structure(the general principles, liability in restitution, remedies, defences to restitution) and key points of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment. The General Principles: the first and central principle is that “[a]person who is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is subject to liability in restitution.” A corollary principle applies that “[a] person is not permitted to profit by his own wrong.” Whether the defendant`s conduct is “wrongful” will ordinarily turn on principles outside the scope of the Restatement. The Restatement also makes clear that restitution may be legal or equitable or both. A claimant entitled to a remedy for unjust enrichment need not demonstrate the inadequacy of available remedies at law. The term “restitution” connotes both liabilities and remedies for unjust enrichment. The term does not connote only a remedy. Liability in Restitution: The law of restitution and unjust enrichment sometimes provides an independent ground for liability, for example, in cases of mistake, and often provides a supplemental or alternative ground for liability, for example in cases of tort or breach of contract. The Restatement has five chapters on liability: Transfers Subject To Avoidance; Unrequested Intervention; Restitution And Contract; Restitution For Wrongs; And Benefits Conferred By A Third Person. Under these chapters, forty-four sections address particular liability issues. Remedies: The Restatement provides a set of remedies other than compensatory damages for harm. They concentrate on what the defendant has received rather than what the plaintiff has lost. Defenses to Restitution: The Restatement`s last part includes the defenses that the recipient was not unjustly enriched, equitable disqualification (unclean hands), passing on and rights of third persons, change of position, bona fide purchaser, bona fide payee, value, notice, and limitation of actions and laches.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Sarah Worthington, "형평법" 도서출판 소화 2009

2 서종희, "침해부당이득에서 수익자의 초과수익반환- 독일법을 중심으로 한 비교법적 고찰 -" 한국법학원 151 : 173-208, 2015

3 서종희, "침해부당이득에서 수익자의 반환범위" 한국비교사법학회 84-172, 2015

4 서종희, "영미 부당이득법상의 이득토출(disgorgement of profits)책임 - 위법행위를 이유로 한 원상회복(restitution for wrongs)을 중심으로 -" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 24 (24): 145-181, 2016

5 이호정, "영국계약법" 경문사 2003

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

7 권영준, "부당이득에 관한 민법개정안 연구" 법학연구소 55 (55): 149-191, 2014

8 곽윤직, "민법주해 제17권" 박영사 2005

9 이혜리, "미국법상 의제신탁의 의미 - 제3차 부당이득법 리스테이트먼트를 중심으로 -" 법학연구원 27 (27): 209-235, 2015

10 이혜리, "미국법상 기회주의적 계약위반에 대한 토출(吐出) 책임" 한국비교사법학회 21 (21): 673-704, 2014

11 이상용, "미국 부당이득법의 개관" 한국민사법학회 75 : 363-420, 2016

12 진도왕, "미국 부당이득법 - 제3차 부당이득법 리스테이트먼트를 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 40 (40): 183-211, 2016

13 笹川明道, "米国での ‘第３次原状回復⋅不当利得法リステイトメント’の刊行について" 神戸学院大学法学会 42 (42): 323-363, 2013

14 潮見佳男, "債權各論Ⅰ(契約法⋅事務管理⋅不當利得)" 新世社 2009

15 加藤雅信, "事務管理⋅不當利得⋅不法行爲(新民法大系 V)" 有斐閣 2009

16 吉川愼一, "不当利得法と要件事実" 有斐閣 (1428) : 38-47, 2011

17 R. Zimmermann, "Unjustified Enrichment: The Modern Civilian Approach" Oxford University Press 15 (15): 403-429, 1995

18 E. J. H. Schrage, "Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution" Duncker & Humblot 1999

19 Gerhard Dannemann, "Unjust Enrichment by Transfer: Some Comparative Remarks" University of Texas School of Law 79 : 1837-1867, 2001

20 Peter Birks, "Unjust Enrichment" Oxford University Press 2005

21 Andrew Burrows, "Understanding the Law of Obligations" Hart Publishing 1998

22 H. Mazeaud, "Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civil délictuelle et contractuelle tomeⅠ" Montchrestien 1965

23 Andrew Kull, "Three Restatements of Restitution" Washington and Lee University, School of Law 68 : 867-880, 2011

24 Douglas Laycock, "The Scope and Significance of Restitution" University of Texas School of Law 67 : 1277-1293, 1989

25 Michael Traynor, "The Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment: Some Introductory Suggestions" Washington and Lee University, School of Law 68 (68): 899-910, 2011

26 L.L. Fuller, "The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages" The Yale Law Journal Company 46 : 52-96, 1936

27 J. Gordley, "The Principle Against Unjustified Enrichment, in: Gedächtnisschrift für Alexander Lüderitz" Verlag C.H. Beck 213-231, 2000

28 R. Goff, "The Law of Unjust Enrichment" Sweet & Maxwell 2011

29 Scott(Austin Wakemann), "The Law of Trust, Vol.5" Aspen 2008

30 R. Goff, "The Law of Restitution" Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 1998

31 R. Zimmermann, "The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition" Oxford University Press 1996

32 Douglas Laycock, "Restoring Restitution to the Canon" Michigan Law Review Association 110 : 929-952, 2012

33 John Langbein, "Restitution-Past, Present and Future: Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones" Hart Publishing 57-62, 1998

34 Peter Birks, "Restitution-Past, Present and Future: Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones" Hart Publishing 1-30, 1998

35 P. Schlechtriem, "Restitution und Bereicherungsausgleich in Europa Bd.Ⅰ" Mohr Siebeck 2000

36 Joseph M. Perillo, "Restitution in a Contractual Context and the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment" Washington and Lee University, School of Law 68 (68): 1007-1026, 2011

37 Chaim Saiman, "Restitution in America: Why the US Refuses to Join the Global Restitution Party" Oxford University Press 28 : 99-126, 2008

38 Warren Seavey, "Restitution" Stevens and Sons 54 : 29-43, 1938

39 Doug Rendleman, "Restating Restitution: The Restatement Process and Its Critics" Washington and Lee University, School of Law 65 : 933-944, 2008

40 Frederick Wilmot-Smith, "Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE Essays" HART PUBLISHING 59-88, 2013

41 James Goudkamp, "Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE Essays" HART PUBLISHING 133-164, 2013

42 Nicholas McBride, "Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: CRITICAL AND COMPARATIVE Essays" HART PUBLISHING 251-284, 2013

43 A. S. Hartkamp, "Mr. C. Asser’s Handleiding tot de Beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht, Verbintenissenrecht, Bd.Ⅲ" Kluwer 2002

44 John D. McCamus, "Mistake, Forged Cheques and Unjust Enrichment: Three Cheers or B.M.P. Global" Canada Law Book, Inc. 48 : 76-101, 2009

45 K. Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts Bd.Ⅱ/2" Verlag C. H. Beck 1994

46 J. FLOUR, "Le fait juridique" ArmandColin 2011

47 Underhill, "Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees" LexisNexis 1995

48 Andrew Kull, "James Barr Ames and the Early Modern History of Unjust Enrichment" Oxford University Press 25 : 297-319, 2005

49 George E. Palmer, "INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPARATIVE LAW" Mohr 2007

50 Douglas Laycock, "How Remedies Become a Field: A History" University of Texas School of Law 27 : 161-267, 2008

51 Mark P. Gergen, "Grundstrukturen eines Europäischen Bereicherungsrechts" Mohr Siebeck 243-263, 2005

52 Rusch, Konrad, "Gewinnhaftung bei Verletzung von Treuepflichten" Mohr Siebeck 2003

53 Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm, "Gewinnabschöpfung bei Verletzung des allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts" 70 : 85-109, 1999

54 Köndgen, Johannes, "Gewinnabschöpfung als Sanktion unerlaubten Tuns: Eine juristischökonomische Skizze" 64 : 661-695, 2000

55 Wagner, Gerhard, "Geldersatz für Persönlichkeitsverletzungen" 200-228, 2000

56 Helen Scott, "Excess Baggage? Rethinking Risk Allocation in the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment" Boston University School of Law 92 (92): 859-883, 2012

57 Ewoud Hondius, "Disgorgement of Profits: Gain-Based Remedies throughout the World" Springer 2015

58 N. Jansen, "Die Korrektur grundloser Vermögensverschiebungen als Restitution? Zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung bei Savigny" 120 : 120-2003, 2003

59 Amelung, Ulrich, "Der Schutz der Privatrecht im Zivilrecht" Mohr Siebeck 2002

60 C. Wollschläger, "Das stoische Bereicherungsverbot in der römischen Rechtswissenschaft" 41-88, 1985

61 Candace Saari Kovacic-Fleischer, "Cohabitation and the Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment" Washington and Lee University, School of Law 68 (68): 1407-1442, 2011

62 James Edelman, "Book Review" Sweet & Maxwell Ltd 128 : 311-314, 2012

63 Edwin Patterson, "Book Review" The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc 47 : 1420-1423, 1938

64 Lionel Smith, "Book Review" McGill University 57 (57): 629-638, 2012

65 Peter Birks, "An Introduction to the Law of Restitution" Clarendon Press 1985

66 D. Ibbetson, "A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations" Oxford University Press 1999