본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 상 하도급대금 지급의무 위반에 관한 소고

A Study on the Prohibition of Non-payment of Subcontract Consideration Under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (“FTSA”) requires the principal contractor to pay subcontract consideration to the subcontractors within a period designated by the FTSA, and it provides for various administrative sanctions upon violation of Article 13 of the FTSA (“Article 13”) and other relevant provisions of the FTSA. Since Article 13 does not expressly provide for exceptions to the principal contractor’s non-payment or delayed payment, there have been court decisions which took the position that the Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC”), in applying Article 13, has only to confirm the fact of non-payment of subcontract consideration but does not need to review justifiable reasons for such non-payment presented by the principal contractor, and the KFTC and some commentators have supported the stance of such court decisions. However, considering the purpose of the FTSA and its legislative background, it is difficult to justify such interpretation of Article 13 that the principal contractor is not allowed to present valid legal defenses based upon its civil law rights. Conversely, Article 13 should be interpreted to require the KFTC to consider the principal contractor’s legal arguments based upon its civil law rights. Further such interpretation of Article 13 should be applied not only to the context of the KFTC’s payment order but also to the context of other corrective orders only confirming the violation of Article 13 itself. In this regard, the principal contractor should be allowed to present various justifiable reasons including the factors regarding non-accrual of the subcontractor’s receivables like non-fulfillment of the subcontracted work, settlement or extinguishment of the subcontractor’s receivables like full payment, set-off etc, and other refusal rights to payment like defense of simultaneous fulfillment among others. Lastly, it is recommended that Article 13 should be amended to clarify legal uncertainties arising from the lack of express language allowing justifiable exceptions to the non-payment of subcontract consideration.

Abstract

The Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (“FTSA”) requires the principal contractor to pay subcontract consideration to the subcontractors within a period designated by the FTSA, and it provides for various administrative sanctions upon violation of Article 13 of the FTSA (“Article 13”) and other relevant provisions of the FTSA. Since Article 13 does not expressly provide for exceptions to the principal contractor’s non-payment or delayed payment, there have been court decisions which took the position that the Korea Fair Trade Commission(“KFTC”), in applying Article 13, has only to confirm the fact of non-payment of subcontract consideration but does not need to review justifiable reasons for such non-payment presented by the principal contractor, and the KFTC and some commentators have supported the stance of such court decisions. However, considering the purpose of the FTSA and its legislative background, it is difficult to justify such interpretation of Article 13 that the principal contractor is not allowed to present valid legal defenses based upon its civil law rights. Conversely, Article 13 should be interpreted to require the KFTC to consider the principal contractor’s legal arguments based upon its civil law rights. Further such interpretation of Article 13 should be applied not only to the context of the KFTC’s payment order but also to the context of other corrective orders only confirming the violation of Article 13 itself. In this regard, the principal contractor should be allowed to present various justifiable reasons including the factors regarding non-accrual of the subcontractor’s receivables like non-fulfillment of the subcontracted work, settlement or extinguishment of the subcontractor’s receivables like full payment, set-off etc, and other refusal rights to payment like defense of simultaneous fulfillment among others. Lastly, it is recommended that Article 13 should be amended to clarify legal uncertainties arising from the lack of express language allowing justifiable exceptions to the non-payment of subcontract consideration.

참고문헌 (14)

  1. 공정거래위원회, "공정거래백서" (2019)
  2. 공정거래위원회(제조하도급국), "제조하도급실무편람" (2003)
  3. 김두진, "하도급법 위반행위의 위법성 판단기준 및 집행수단", 경영법률, 25(4), pp.385~423 (2015), 한국경영법률학회
  4. 김민기, "하도급대금의 부당감액을 금지하는 하도급거래 공정화에 관한 법률 제11조 위반시 법률관계", 대법원판례해설, (87) (2011)
  5. 손계준, "하도급법상 지급명령의 법적 쟁점 - 대법원 2015. 12. 10. 선고 2013두35013 판결 및 대법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2012두1555 판결 -", 경쟁법연구, 33, pp.353~386 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
  6. 오승돈, "하도급법" (2019), 지식과감성
  7. 유진희, "하도급법의 집행상의 쟁점", 비교사법, 20(1), pp.191~238 (2013), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  8. 윤성철, "하도급분쟁사례해설-건설․제조하도급 실무 분쟁을 중심으로-" (2020), 도서출판 법과 교육
  9. 이기택, "가. 하도급대금의 발생 및 지급지연과 같은 하도급거래공정화에관한법률 제13조 등의 위반행위가 있었으나 그 결과가 더 이상 존재하지 않는 경우, 같은 법제25조 제1항 소정의 시정명령을 할 수 있는지 여부(소극), 나. 하도급거래공정화에관한법률 제9조 제2항의 원사업자가 수급사업자로부터 목적물을 수령하고도 정당한 사유 없이 10일 이내에 수급사업자에게 서면으로 검사결과를 통지하지 아니한 경우에는 검사에 합격한 것으로 본다는 규정의 취지", 대법원 판례해설, (43) (2003), 법원도서관
  10. 이 황, "하도급법의 최근 개정 동향과 발전 방향 : 하도급대금 부당결정을 중심으로", 경쟁저널, (177) (2014)
  11. 정종채, "하도급법 해설과 쟁점" (2019), 삼일인포마인
  12. 조용호, "하도급법에 있어서 해석상의 몇 가지 문제점", 인권과 정의, 232 (1995), 대한변호사협회
  13. 지원림, "민법강의" (2020), 홍문사
  14. 황태희, "하도급 거래에 있어서 수급사업자 보호의 실효성 제고방안에 관한 법적 연구 - 시정조치 등 제재를 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 25, pp.278~310 (2012), 한국경쟁법학회[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)