信託受託者의 補償請求權에 관한 考察
A study of a trustee's Right to Reimbursement
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Trust Act §42 prescribes a trustee's right to reimbursement. This right has been recognized in England and US by cases or statues. Article 42 of Trust Act of Korea follows the tradition. When a trustee did trust affairs for trust estate or a beneficiary, the trustee can request compensation the damage that it received without expense and without the fault during performing the affairs. This is a reflection of principle which is "the person make a profit on control of a business and bears the risk simultaneously" like a delegation(§688 (3) in Civil Law). When a trustee, who performs a trust affairs for the profit of the beneficiary solely, is charged with the debt to a trust creditor, he can claim the compensation against the trust estate or the beneficiary. Especially, trustee can be compensated by disposing a trust estate oneself prior to the different holder of a right(for example, a trust creditor). This article examines a few problems of a claim for this a trustee's right to reimbursement. First issue is a problem the right to reimbursement of priority to between the trust estate and the beneficiary. Second issue is a problem of the case compulsory execution where the trust estate is property other than the money. Especially the trustee can apply for a compulsory execution to trust estate while being in trustee's position. Third issue is the meaning of "other holder of a right" and the legal nature of the priority under the Trust Act § 42 (1). Forth issue is the problem of appropriateness about admitting the claim of compensation of the beneficiary, and the effect of a waiver of interests of the beneficiaries. Many opinion is existed in the effect of a waiver of the 'Interests of the beneficiaries' under the Trust Act §42 (3). In my view, it is allowed in both self-settled trust and non-self-settled trust. And in this case, the beneficiary escapes from the trustee's demand, or the right of indemnity based on the § 42 (2). But, in the case of non-self-settled trust, even if the beneficiary take a benefit of trust, his obligation which is already happened, is exempted form the trustee's the right of indemnity based on the § 42 (2) by the waiver of the 'Interests of the beneficiaries'.
Abstract
Trust Act §42 prescribes a trustee's right to reimbursement. This right has been recognized in England and US by cases or statues. Article 42 of Trust Act of Korea follows the tradition. When a trustee did trust affairs for trust estate or a beneficiary, the trustee can request compensation the damage that it received without expense and without the fault during performing the affairs. This is a reflection of principle which is "the person make a profit on control of a business and bears the risk simultaneously" like a delegation(§688 (3) in Civil Law). When a trustee, who performs a trust affairs for the profit of the beneficiary solely, is charged with the debt to a trust creditor, he can claim the compensation against the trust estate or the beneficiary. Especially, trustee can be compensated by disposing a trust estate oneself prior to the different holder of a right(for example, a trust creditor). This article examines a few problems of a claim for this a trustee's right to reimbursement. First issue is a problem the right to reimbursement of priority to between the trust estate and the beneficiary. Second issue is a problem of the case compulsory execution where the trust estate is property other than the money. Especially the trustee can apply for a compulsory execution to trust estate while being in trustee's position. Third issue is the meaning of "other holder of a right" and the legal nature of the priority under the Trust Act § 42 (1). Forth issue is the problem of appropriateness about admitting the claim of compensation of the beneficiary, and the effect of a waiver of interests of the beneficiaries. Many opinion is existed in the effect of a waiver of the 'Interests of the beneficiaries' under the Trust Act §42 (3). In my view, it is allowed in both self-settled trust and non-self-settled trust. And in this case, the beneficiary escapes from the trustee's demand, or the right of indemnity based on the § 42 (2). But, in the case of non-self-settled trust, even if the beneficiary take a benefit of trust, his obligation which is already happened, is exempted form the trustee's the right of indemnity based on the § 42 (2) by the waiver of the 'Interests of the beneficiaries'.
참고문헌 (30)
- 곽윤직, "채권각론" (2003), 박영사
- 김성필, "신탁법리의 사법적 체계화에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1997
- 김진우, "신탁재산의 특수성", 법조, 51(10) (2002)
- 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 ―", 민사법학, (30), pp.183~210 (2005), 한국민사법학회
- 이연갑, "위탁자 및 수탁자의 권리·의무, 신탁재산", 2009년 신탁법개정 공청회자료집 (2009)
- 李縯甲, "受託者의 補償請求權과 忠實義務", 민사판례연구, (30), pp.271~314 (2008), 민사판례연구회
- 이연갑, "신탁법연구" (2009), 박영사
- 이재욱, "신탁법 해설, 제1판" (2000), 한국사법행정학회
- 이연갑, "신탁법, 초판" (2007), 삼우사
- 이연갑, "신탁채권자에 대한 수탁자의 책임가능성 : 수탁자 보상청구권의 대위 및 보상청구권의 포기약정을 중심으로)", 법학연구, 7 (2005), 홍익대학교 법학연구소
- 최동식, "신탁법" (2006), 법문사
- 최수정, "일본 신신탁법" (2007), 진원사
- 최현태, "신탁수익자의 권리보호에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2009
- 홍유석, "신탁법" (1999), 법문사
- 能見善久, "現代信託法" (2004), 有斐閣
- 四宮和夫, "信託法, 新版" (1989), 有斐閣
- 三淵忠彦, "信託法通繹" (1926), 大岡山書店
- 北村惠美, "信託財産に歸屬する債務に關する一考察", 信託法硏究, (18) (1994), 信託法學會
- 寺本振透, "解說新信託法" (2007), 弘文堂
- 寺本昌廣, "逐條解說 新しい信託法" (2007), 商事法務
- 松本崇, "信託法(特別法コンメンタール), 初版" (1972), 第一法規出版
- 新井誠, "信託法, 第2版" (2006), 有斐閣
- 遠藤雅範, "受託者の報償請求權に關する法律上の", 信託法硏究, (26) (2001), 信託法學會
- 入江眞太郞, "信託法原論, 全訂版", pp.1933, 巖松堂書店
- 田中和明, "新信託法と信託實務" (2007), 淸文社
- 井元浩史, "信託財産による事業の經營について", 信託法硏究, (6)
- American Law Institute, "Restatement of The Law, Trusts Second(Vol. 1)" (1959), American Law Institute Publishers
- A. W. Scott, "The Law of Trusts Ⅲ, 4th ed." (1988), Little, Brown and Company
- Bogert, "Trusts, 6th ed." (1987), West Pub. Co.
- Hayton, "Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies" (2005), Sweet & Maxwell
