본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

전용물소권의 인정여부에 대한 법리 재검토

A Restudy on the ground for affirmation of "actio de in rem verso"

이승현|정상현
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2012.09|성균관법학 (SungKyunKwan Law Review)|제24권 제3호|pp. 357-391|DOI 10.17008/skklr.2012.24.3.014

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

직접소권형평사회적 사실주석학파전용물소권condictiocondictio sine causa부당이득반환소권목적부도달의 부당이득반환소권무원인의 부당이득반환소권판덱텐의 현대적 관용로마법의 계수계약의 연쇄계약의 상대적 효력actio de in rem versoaequitascondictio ob remusus modernus pandektarumactio de in rem verso utilis부진정사무관리준전용물소권채무법현대화사무관리의 피난처계약의 대항력GlossatorenRezeption der römischen RechtsSchuldrechtsmodernisierungchaînes de contratsla gestion d’affaire anormalel’abri de la gestion d’affaireaction directela relativité du contratle fait sociall’opposabilité du contrat
주제분류법학

초록

This thesis is designed to establish a reasonable viewpoint about "actio de in rem verso". The actio de in rem verso is the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment to third party who received the benefit from the contractual relationship, except the parties to the contract. It has its origins in roman law. But It was changed, under the influence of a valuable concept and the legal theory by the time and the place. On the other hand, most scholars of our country and the position of the Supreme Court of Korea argue as follows: The actio de in rem verso should not be accepted in that it disrupts stable operation of korean civil law. Concretely speaking, actio de in rem verso destroys autonomous contractual structure of right and duty. Moreover it makes contracts for a security right (guarantee, mortgage etc.) meaningless and corrodes bankruptcy law. Last but not least, it substantially deprives the fundamental right of self determination in entering into a contract, the freedom of choice on contractual counterpart and the liberty of contractual terms-making. Taking these into account, actio de in rem verso should not be accepted if there is no special need and regulations, for example, clause 2 of article 747 of Korean Civil Law. But, such claims are not right. the actio de in rem verso should be discussed on condition that it does not bring about a normative collision with other articles and principles of the korean civil law. As a general principle of modern civil law, contract law and unjust enrichment law are systematically separated. And as a supplementary judicial of contract law, there is unjust enrichment law. From each of these separate systems, actio de in rem verso occupy the position of the nature of the return of unjust enrichment claims. And actio de in rem verso is recognized as a general regime to realize substantial equity between the parties. In this respect, actio de in rem verso must be considered, as the general requirements of unjust enrichment. Therefore in most cases of actio de in rem verso, it must be admited. In conclusion, in our civil law, actio de in rem verso should be considered positively. And in this regard, the attitude of Supreme Court of Korea should be changed.

Abstract

This thesis is designed to establish a reasonable viewpoint about "actio de in rem verso". The actio de in rem verso is the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment to third party who received the benefit from the contractual relationship, except the parties to the contract. It has its origins in roman law. But It was changed, under the influence of a valuable concept and the legal theory by the time and the place. On the other hand, most scholars of our country and the position of the Supreme Court of Korea argue as follows: The actio de in rem verso should not be accepted in that it disrupts stable operation of korean civil law. Concretely speaking, actio de in rem verso destroys autonomous contractual structure of right and duty. Moreover it makes contracts for a security right (guarantee, mortgage etc.) meaningless and corrodes bankruptcy law. Last but not least, it substantially deprives the fundamental right of self determination in entering into a contract, the freedom of choice on contractual counterpart and the liberty of contractual terms-making. Taking these into account, actio de in rem verso should not be accepted if there is no special need and regulations, for example, clause 2 of article 747 of Korean Civil Law. But, such claims are not right. the actio de in rem verso should be discussed on condition that it does not bring about a normative collision with other articles and principles of the korean civil law. As a general principle of modern civil law, contract law and unjust enrichment law are systematically separated. And as a supplementary judicial of contract law, there is unjust enrichment law. From each of these separate systems, actio de in rem verso occupy the position of the nature of the return of unjust enrichment claims. And actio de in rem verso is recognized as a general regime to realize substantial equity between the parties. In this respect, actio de in rem verso must be considered, as the general requirements of unjust enrichment. Therefore in most cases of actio de in rem verso, it must be admited. In conclusion, in our civil law, actio de in rem verso should be considered positively. And in this regard, the attitude of Supreme Court of Korea should be changed.

참고문헌 (119)

  1. 加藤雅信, "事務管理ㆍ不當利得ㆍ不法行爲, 新民法大系V", pp.117~ (2002), 有斐閣
  2. 김형배, "부당이득 과 다수당사자", 고시연구, 31(12), pp.35~ (2004), 고시연구사
  3. 정태윤, "전용물소권에 관한 일고찰", 비교사법, 9(1), pp.182~ (2002), 한국비교사법학회
  4. 김판기, "전용물소권-일본의 판례와 학설을 중심으로", 법조, 55(10), pp.132~155 (2006), 법조협회
  5. Ernst von Caemmerer, "Bereichrung und unerlaubte Handlung, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.I, Rechtsvergleichung und Schuldrecht", pp.245~ (1968), Mohr Siebeck
  6. Detlef König, "Der Bereicherungsanspruch gegen den Drittempfänger einer Vertragsleistung nach französischem Recht, Dissertation Freiburg im Breisgau", pp.10~ (1967), Metzner
  7. 磯村哲, "法律學一五○, 民法(債務法)11, 不當利得", 法學セミナ, (23), pp.21~ (1958)
  8. 藤原正則, "不當利 得法", pp.377~ (2002), 信山社
  9. 양창수, "민법주해 XVII, 채권(10)", pp.228~229 (2005), 박영사
  10. 최병조, "로마법강의", pp.280~ (1999), 박영사
  11. Marcel Planiol, "Georges Ripert, Traitré pratique de droit civil français, T.VII, Obligations, 2epartie, 2eéd", par P. Esmein, J. Raduant et G. Gabolde,L.G.D.J., 1954, no752, 48~ (1954)
  12. Max Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht, 6.Aufl", pp.189~ (1968), C.H.Beck
  13. Paul Jörs, "Römisches Privatrecht, 3.Aufl", pp.267~ (1949), Spriger Verlag
  14. Gerhard von Beseler, "Beiträge zur Kritik der römischen Rechtsquellen, Bd.III", pp.193~ (1913), MohrSiebeck
  15. 현승종, "로마법", pp.348~349 (1996), 법문사
  16. Karl Georg von Wächter, "Pandekten, Bd.II", pp.203~457 (1880)
  17. William WarwickBuckland, "A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian", pp.534~536 (1950), Cambridge at the UniversityPress
  18. Paul Frédéric Girard, "Manuel élémentaire droit romain, 8eéd.", pp.715~ (1929), Librairie Arthur Rousseau
  19. Gaston May, "Éléments de droit romain, 3eéd.", pp.380~ (1894)
  20. AndréEdmond Victor Giffard, "Précis de droit romain, T.II, Obligations, 3eéd.", pp.199~ (1951), Dalloz
  21. Robert Villers, "Rome et droit privé", pp.190~ (1977), Édition Albin Michel
  22. Paul Koschaker, "Europa und das römische Recht, 4.Aufl", pp.126~ (1966), C.H.Beck
  23. FranzWieacker, "Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit, 2.Aufl", pp.97~ (1967), Venden
  24. Henri,Léon, "Jean Mazeaud et François Chabas, Leçon de droit civil, T.I, 1ervol., Introduction à l'étude du droit, 8eéd." (1986), Éditions Montchrestien
  25. Konrad Zweigert, "Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts, Bd.I : Grundlagen, 2.Aufl.", pp.187~ (1984), J.C.B.Mohr
  26. Ferdinand Mackeldey, "Lehrbuch des heutigen römischen Rechts, Bd.II", pp.287~ (1827)
  27. Karl Bucher, "Das Recht der Forderungen, Nach den Grundsätzen des Justinianischen Rechts, Engelmann", 517 Anm, 159~517 (1830)
  28. Christian Friedrich Mühlenbruch, "Lehrbuch des Pandekten-Rechts, Bd.II, Theil.III", pp.439~430 (1836), Halle
  29. Johann Nepomuk vonWening-Ingenheim, "Lehrbuch des gemeinen Civilrechtes, Nach Heise's Grundriss eines Systems des gemeinen Civil-Rechts zum Behufe von Pandekten-Vorlesungen, Bd.II, 4.Aufl.", pp.126~186 (1837), Fleischmann
  30. Johann Friedrich Ludwig Göschen, "Vorlösungen über das gemeine Civilrecht, Bd.II, 2.Abtheilung, Obligationenrecht", pp.646~683 (1839)
  31. Bernhard Windscheid, "Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Bd.II", pp.1119~ (1906), Rütten & Loening
  32. Rolf Schmitt, "Die Subsidiarität der Bereicherungsansprüche", pp.28~49 (1969), Bielefeld
  33. Johann Adam Seuffert, "Beiträge zur Gesetzgebung, insbesondere des Königreichs Baiern, Verlage der Stahel’schen Buchhandlung", pp.119~ (1823), Würzburg
  34. Ludwig Arndts Karl von Arnesberg, "Lehrbuch der Pandekten, 11.Aufl", pp.471~472 (1883), Verlag der J. G. Gota’schenBuchhandlung
  35. Julius Baron, "Pandekten, 9.Aufl", pp.397~399 (1896), Verlag von Duncker & Humblot
  36. Georg FriedrichPuchta, "Vorlesungen über das heutige römische Recht, Bd.II, 4.Aufl.", pp.120~ (1855), Verlag von BernhardTauchnitz
  37. Otto von Gierke, ", Deutsches Privatrecht, Bd.III", pp.993~ (1917), Verlag von Duncker & Humblot
  38. Justus Wilhelm Hedemann, "Der Dresdner Entwurf von 1866, Ein Schritt auf dem Wege zur deutschen Rechtseinheit", pp.1~ (1935), Carl Heymanns Verlag
  39. Hans Schlosser, "Grundzüge der neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, 4.Aufl.", pp.111~ (1982), C.F.Müller
  40. Werner Schubert, "Die Beratung des bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs in systemischer Zusammenstellung der unveröffentlichten Quellen, Materialien zur Entstehungsgeschichte des BGB-Einführung, Biographien, Materialien-", pp.27~68 (1978), Walter de Gruyter
  41. 柚木馨, ", 民法總則", pp.22~24 (1988), 有斐閣
  42. "Motive zu dem Entwürfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs für das deutsche Reich, Bd.II, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse", ~ (1888)
  43. Benno Mugdan, "Die gesamten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich, Bd.II", pp.487~ (1899), Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, R. von Decker's Verlag
  44. Otto von Gierke, "Der Entwurf eines bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch und das deutsche Recht", pp.272~274 (1889), Verlag vonDuncker & Humblot
  45. "Protokolle der Kommission für die zweite Lesung des Entwurfs des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs", 2371~2378 (1898)
  46. Manfred Lieb, "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, Bd.5, 3.Aufl", pp.812~929 (1997), C.H.Beck
  47. Werner Lorenz, "Julius von Staudingers Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen, 12.Aufl", pp.812~ (1986), J. Schweitzer Verlag
  48. Josef Esser, "Schuldrecht, Bd.II, Besondere Teil, 6.Aufl", pp.48~373 (1984), C.F.Müller
  49. Dieter Medicus, "Schuldrecht II, Besondere Teil, 7.Aufl.", pp.300~ (1995), C.H.Beck
  50. VolkerEmmerich, "BGBSchuldrecht, Besonderer Teil, 2.Aufl.", pp.16~100 (1976), C.F.Müller
  51. Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, "Der Bereicherungsausgleich im Dreipersonenverhältnis, Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 70.Geburstag", pp.799~ (1973), wC.H.Beck
  52. Hans-Georg Koppensteiner, "Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung", pp.25~ (1975), Walter de Gruyter
  53. Théodore P. Théodoroff, "L'enrichissement sans cause", pp.27~35 (1907), thèse Toulouse
  54. Charles Demolombe, "Cours de Code Napoléon, T.XXXI, 2eéd", pp.49~ (1882)
  55. Phlippe Malaurie, "Cours de droit civil, T.VI, Les obligations, 6eéd", pp.543~ (1995), Éditions Cujas
  56. François Terré, "Philippe Simler et Yves Lequette, Droit civil, Les obligations, 10eéd.", pp.1058~ (2009), Dalloz
  57. Eugène Gaudemet, "Théorie générale des obligations", pp.292~ (1965), par H.Desbois et J. Gaudemet, Sirey
  58. Alex Weill, "Droit civil", pp.817~835 (1986), Les obligations
  59. Marcel Planiol, "Classification des sources des obligations", pp.224~ (1904), Revue critique de législattion et dejurisprudence
  60. Aubry et Rau, "Cours de droit civil français, T.IX, 5eéd", pp.355~363 (1917), par Étienne Bartin, L.G.D.J.
  61. 黑田長政, "貴族院民法中修正案特別委員會委 員長の報告", 法典質疑錄, (3), pp.39~ (1896)
  62. 善太郞, "日本法學の歷史と理論", pp.20~ (1968), 日本評論社
  63. 穗積陳重, "法律五大族, 遺文集 第一冊", pp.292~
  64. 星野英一, "日本民法典に與えたフランス民法の影響", 民法論集, 1, pp.69~ (1970), 有斐閣
  65. 岡孝, "民法起草とドイツ民法第二草案の影響", 法律時報, (867), pp.53~ (1998)
  66. 五十川直行, "日本民法に及ぼしたイギリス法の影響<序說>, In 現代社會と民法學の動向(下)-民法一 般(加藤一郞先生古稀記念)", pp.3~ (1992), 有斐閣
  67. 廣中俊雄, "民法典の百年 Iㆍ全般的考察", pp.9~ (1998), 有斐閣
  68. 仁井田益太郞, "舊民法", pp.5~8 (1943), 日本評論社
  69. 岡孝, "法典論爭から明治民法成立ㆍ注釋時代, In 日本民法學史ㆍ通史", pp.86~ (1997), 信山社
  70. 廣中俊雄, "第九回帝國會議の民法審議", pp.74~86 (1986), 有斐閣
  71. 川角由和, "不當利得とはなにか", pp.407~ (2004), 日本評論社
  72. 於保不二雄, "轉用物訴權に就て", 法學論叢, 35(2), pp.578~ (1936)
  73. 磯村哲, "直接利得の要求に就いて-利得の不當性への問題的關聯性", 法學論叢, 47(5), pp.828~ (1942)
  74. 磯村哲, "不當利得ㆍ事務管理ㆍ轉用物訴權の關係と分化-不當利得法の構造 その地位-(一)(二)", 法學論叢, 50(4), pp.320~ (1944)
  75. 磯村哲, "不當利得論考", pp.67~ (2006), 新靑出版
  76. 我妻榮, "債權各論, 民法講義(下一)", pp.1041~ (1980), 岩波書店
  77. 藤原正則, "わが國における轉用物訴權のあり方, In 不當利得法と擔保物權法の交錯", pp.193~ (1997), 成文堂
  78. 廣中俊雄, "ブルド-ザ-ㆍケ-スの問題性", 法學セミナ-, (215), pp.85~ (1974)
  79. 好美淸光, "不當利得法の新しい動向について(下)”", 判例タイムズ, (387) (1979)
  80. 四宮和夫, "事務管理ㆍ不當利得ㆍ不法行爲(上卷)", 現代法律學全集, 10, pp.242~243 (1995), 靑林書院
  81. 內田貴, "民法 II, 債權各論", pp.543~ (1997), 東京大學出版會
  82. 山田幸二, "利得の正當化に關する一考察(二ㆍ完) : 不當利得における三角關係を中心に", 民商法雜誌, 93(6), pp.823~ (1986)
  83. 水本浩, "不當利得-民法セミナ-7, 債權各論 下", pp.81~ (1985), 一粒社
  84. 谷口知平, "不當利得の硏究", pp.230~ (1949), 有斐閣
  85. 松坂佑一, "不當利得論", pp.253~ (1991), 有斐閣
  86. 近江幸治, "民法講義 IV, 事務管理ㆍ不當利得ㆍ不法行爲", pp.72~ (2004), 成文堂
  87. 鈴木祿弥, "債權法講義", pp.529~530 (1990), 創文社
  88. 三宅正男, "事務管理者の行爲の本人に對する效 力", 不當利得ㆍ事務管理の硏究, 3, pp.338~ (1972), 有斐閣
  89. 田中豊, "建物賃借人から請け負って修繕工事をした者が賃借人の無資力を理由に建物所有者に對し 不當利得の返還を請求することができる場合", ジュリスト, (1085), pp.72~74 (1996)
  90. 김형배, , pp.303~ (2003), 박영사
  91. 김주수, "채권각론", pp.572~ (1997), 삼영사
  92. 지원림, "민법강의", pp.1614~1615 (2012), 홍문사
  93. 송덕수, "신민법강의", pp.1479~ (2010), 박영사
  94. 諸哲雄, "3자관계에서의 부당이득: 특히 전용물소권의 사안을 중심으로", 저스티스, 67, pp.54~79 (2002), 한국법학원
  95. 김우진, "所有權留保附賣買 目的物의 附合과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, (33), pp.455~492 (2011), 민사판례연구회
  96. 이병준, "소위 전용물소권과 민법제203조의 비용상환청구권-대법원 2002.8.23. 선고 99다66564, 66571 판결", Jurist, (410), pp.260~ (2006), 청림인터렉티브
  97. 홍성주, "전용물소권과 민법 제203조 소정의 비용상환청구권", 판례연구, 14, pp.76~ (2003), 부산판례연구회
  98. 곽윤직, "채권각론", pp.606~607 (1995), 박영사
  99. 권용우, "채권각론", pp.441~ (1994), 법문사
  100. 김준호, "민법강의", pp.1696~ (2011), 법문사
  101. 장재현, "채권법각론", pp.498~ (2006), 경북대학교출판부
  102. 임한흠, "주석민법(제3판), 채권각칙(5)", pp.432~ (1999), 한국사법행정학회
  103. 김상용, "채권각론", pp.548~ (2003), 법문사
  104. 이은영, "채권각론", pp.693~ (1999), 박영사
  105. 김준호, "채권각칙-이론ㆍ사례ㆍ판례", pp.378~ (2007), 법문사
  106. 오시영, "민법강의", pp.1671~ (2006), 학현사
  107. 이병준, "부당이득에서 급부, 침해 그리고 단순한 이익의 귀속 - 대법원 2010. 3. 11. 선고 2009다98706 판결에 대한 평석 -", 재산법연구, 27(1), pp.27~60 (2010), 한국재산법학회
  108. 박세민, "부당이득법의 인과관계와 법률상 원인－ ｢편취금전에 의한 채무변제｣에 관한 대법원판결을 예시로 －", 민사법학, (41), pp.87~128 (2008), 한국민사법학회
  109. 김재형, "민법총칙 제8판(전면개정)", pp.365~366 (2012), 박영사
  110. 김규완, "민법학강의(제10판)", pp.282~ (2011), 신조사(서울)
  111. 김주수, "민법총칙", pp.393~ (2011), 삼영사
  112. 이은영, "민법총칙", pp.655~ (2009), 박영사
  113. 김상용, "민법총칙", pp.617~ (2009), 화산미디어
  114. 백태승, "민법총칙", pp.531~ (2009), 법문사
  115. 송덕수, "민법총칙", pp.414~415 (2011), 박영사
  116. 이연갑, "주석민법 총칙(3) 제4판", pp.219~ (2010), 한국사법행정학회
  117. Louis Boyer, "Contrats et Conventions, Répertoire de droit civil, T.IV, Encyclopédie juridique", pp.28~ (2003), Dalloz
  118. 김욱곤, "계약의 효력”, 민법학의 기본문제", pp.407~408 (2005), 삼지원
  119. René Savatier, "Le prétendu principe de l’effet relatif des contrats", pp.525~ (1934), Revue trimestrielle de droitcivil

관련 논문AI추천

전용물소권-일본의 판례와 학설을 중심으로김판기사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2006 · 제55권 제10호Neue Diskussion zur sog. Versionsklage in Deutschland -Ist ein Vertrag nur zwischen den Vertragsparteien wirksam?-박의근법학연구원 · 법학논고2014 · 제48호전용물소권에 관한 판례 동향과 그 인정근거 재검토박석일, 정상현민사법의 이론과 실무학회 · 민사법의 이론과 실무2020 · 제23권 제2호점유자의 비용상환청구권과 전용물소권의 관계에 관한 일고찰이승현법학연구원 · 성균관법학2015 · 제27권 제2호民法 第406條 原狀回復의 方法으로서의 價額賠償에 관한 一考察최문기법학연구원 · 성균관법학2010 · 제22권 제3호제3자를 위한 계약의 재검토 − 새로운 형태의 보증을 중심으로 −김명숙안암법학회 · 안암법학2014 · 제44호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (29건)

중재 자치의 개념과 내용손경한pp. 1-29国際訴訟における当事者自治を巡る現代的諸相 -日本の視点から-早川 吉尚pp. 31-43國際訴訟 上 當事者 自治의 現代的 諸相 - 日本의 視點에서 -早川 吉尚pp. 45-59中国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》中的当事人意思自治原则첸리pp. 61-81중국 <섭외민사관계법률적용법>중의 당사자 의사자치의 원칙첸리pp. 83-101
원문 보기