신탁에서의 물권법정주의에 관한 연구 -영미법계와 대륙법계의 소유권을 중심으로- = The Numerus Clausus in Trusts

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is true there is very strong prejudice that the ownership of civil-law system and that of Anglo-American legal system are very disparate rights against each other. Because of differences of legal systems, various theories about the nature of the beneficiary right in trusts are raised in civil-law system like Korea and Japan. We come to know that the two legal systems are not isolated from each other through the meaning of the Numerus Clausus in Korean civil law, the cases that the duplicate ownership has been accepted to korean civil law, the cases that partial acceptance of civil-law system by Anglo-American law and vise versa. Especially, it is allowed the creation of new right in rem by the precedent law(customary law) besides by the statutes in Numerus Clausus of Korean civil law otherwise Japanese civil law allows it only by the statutes. Thus we can make an estimation that Numerus Clausus of Korean civil law is more flexible than other civil-law countries. In this regard, I think the customary law in Numerus Clausus of Korean civil law can correspond to common law in Anglo-American legal system.85) I concluded that the fiduciary relationship can be accepted to Korean property and we can get to the core of the nature of the legal title of trustee and beneficiary interest of equity by interpreting Korean Trust Act, because there is no limitation for the introduction of new right in rem by the statute like the Trust Act in Korean civil law, and the Korean Supreme Court has made effectiveness about the fiduciary transfer of ownership by the precedents. In this theoretical discussion, Numerus Clausus and its concept of ownership can usually be an obstacle. But, I think it is needed to establish and interpret the fiduciary relationship on the basis of modern Anglo-American trusts rather than develop artificial theories, because the Numerus Clausus and concept of ownership in Korean civil law is more flexible than other civil-law countries.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Sarah Worthington, "형평법" 소화 2009

2 명순구, "프랑스민법전" 법문사 2004

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

4 김성수, "중국 물권법의 물권법정주의(제5조)에 관한 연구" 한중법학회 13 : 15-42, 2010

5 광장신탁법연구회, "주석신탁법" 박영사 2016

6 임채웅, "유럽신탁법원칙에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 11 (11): 231-256, 2010

7 서희원, "영미법강의" 박영사 2002

8 법무부, "신탁법 개정안 해설"

9 최동식, "신탁법" 법문사 2007

10 이중기, "신탁법" 삼우사 2007

11 윤철홍, "소유권의 역사" 법원사 1995

12 이태재, "소유권론의 역사적 변천" 한국법사학회 5 : 1979

13 이태재, "서양법제사개설" 진명문화사 1967

14 조규창, "비교법(상)" 소화 2005

15 김윤찬, "부동산실명법상의 무효인 명의신탁·유효인 명의신탁의 법률관계" 경성대 법학연구소 (7) : 1998

16 양창수, "부동산실명법 제4조에 의한 명의신탁의 효력" 서울대 법학연구소 38 (38): 1997

17 권오곤, "민사판례연구" 박영사 1989

18 서문식, "미국의 신탁법리 —우리나라의 신탁법과의 차이를 중심으로—" 한국금융법학회 5 (5): 29-61, 2008

19 박종찬, "미국신탁법에 관한 연구" 강원대 비교법학연구소 18 : 2004

20 남윤삼, "물권법정주의의 현대적 과제" 법제처 2001

21 이은영, "물권법" 박영사 2006

22 김상수, "명의신탁의 연혁에 관하여" 한국토지법학회 26 (26): 79-102, 2010

23 현승종, "로마법" 법문사 2004

24 류창호, "관계적 소유권론의 검토" 한국외대 법학연구소 6 : 1999

25 Karl Kroeschell, "게르만적 소유권개념의 이론에 대하여" 서울대 법학연구소 34 (34): 1993

26 현승종, "게르만법 증보판" 박영사 1989

27 최수정, "개정 신탁법상의 수익권" 법무부 (59) : 139-160, 2012

28 안성포, "信託의 基本構造와 그 法理" 중앙법학회 9 (9): 709-732, 2007

29 이근영, "信託法上 受益者의 受益權의 意義와 受益權抛棄― 신탁법 제42조 제3항을 중심으로 ―" 한국민사법학회 (30) : 183-210, 2005

30 徐滴宇, "アルゼンチン共和國最新民法典" 法律出版社 2007

31 David J. Hayton, "Underhill and Hayton Law Relating to Trusts and Trustees" Butterworths 1987

32 Maurizio Lupoi, "Trusts in Civil Law or Mixed Legal System in Trusts : A Comparative Study" Cambridge Univ. Press 2000

33 Jaro Mayda, "Trusts and Living Law in Europe" 103 : 1955

34 Michael A. Heller, "The Tragedy of the Anticommons : Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets" 111 : 1998

35 Tony Honore, "The South African Law of Trusts" Juta & Company 1976

36 M. W. Lau, "The Nature of the Trust Beneficiary's Interest" The Canadian Bar Association 45 : 1967

37 R. A. Cunningham, "The Law of Property" West Group 1984

38 Henry Hansmann, "The Functions of Trust Law" 73 : 1998

39 Maurizio Lupoi, "The Civil Law Trusts" Vanderbilt Law School 32 : 1999

40 Michael A. Heller, "The Boundaries of Private Property" 108 : 1999

41 J. E. Penner, "The 'Bundle of Rights' Picture of Property" 43 : 1996

42 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, "Some Fundamental Legal Concepts as Applied in Judicial Reasoning" The Yale Law Journal Company 23 (23): 1913

43 Hans Josef Wieling, "Sachenrecht" Springer Verlag 1992

44 Curtis J. Berger, "Property: Land Ownership and Use" Aspen 1997

45 Henry Hansmann, "Property, Contract and Verification : The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights" 31 : 2002

46 Alison Clarke, "Property Law" Cambridge University Press 2005

47 David J. Hayton, "Principles of European Trust Law" Kluwer Law 1999

48 John Henry Merryman, "Policy, Autonomy, and the Numerus Clausus in Italian and American Property Law" 12 : 1963

49 Thomas W. Merrill, "Optimal Standardization in the law of Property; The Numerus Clausus Principle" The Yale Law Journal Company 110 : 2000

50 F. W. Maitland, "Equity-A Course of Lectures" Cambridge Univ. Press 1936

51 F. W. Maitland, "Equity-A Course of Lectures" Cambridge Univ. Press 1969

52 Alastair Hudson, "Equity and Trusts" Routledge 2009

53 Philip H. Pettit, "Equity and The Law of Trusts" Oxford 2005

54 Michele Granziadei, "Commercial Trusts in European Private Law" Cambridge Univ. Press 2005

55 "Black's Law Dictionary" West 1990

56 Ugo Mattei, "Basic principles of Property Law" Greenwood Press 2000

57 Jean Brissaud, "A History of French Private Law" Rothman Reprints Inc & Augustus M. Kelley Publishers 1968