본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

일본의 국제도산법제에 관한 검토 - 국제도산절차의 효력을 중심으로 -

A Study on the Japanese Law on the Cross-Border Insolvency - Focused on the Effects of Insolvency Proceedings -

김영주
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2012.03|성균관법학 (SungKyunKwan Law Review)|제24권 제1호|pp. 397-443|DOI 10.17008/skklr.2012.24.1.015

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

국제도산외국도산절차의 승인국내도산절차의 대외적 효력채무자회생법Cross-Border InsolvencyRecognition of Foreign Insolvency Proceedings외국도산절차의 대내적 효력병행도산절차의 조정승인원조법
주제분류법학

초록

Cross-border insolvency cases can involve either a single case where the debtor's assets are located in multiple jurisdictions or the insolvency of multiple members of a cross-border group resulting in concurrent insolvency proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. In 2000, Japan enacted the Law of Recognition and Assistance for Foreign Insolvency Proceedings (LRAFIP) which adopted almost all the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, and abolished the notorious territorialism contained in Japanese insolvency laws for so many years. Since the LRAFIP became effective in 2002, only two cases have been filed, calling for recognition and assistance under the LRAFIP. Also, in Korea, from 2006, the new era of bankruptcy law governing international insolvency began. The previous three bankruptcy laws - Bankruptcy Act, Composition Act, and Corporate Reorganization Act - have been merged into, and were replaced by, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of Korea. One of the most important changes on the Act (DRBAK) is the introduction of “universalism” of an international insolvency part. This Paper introduces international insolvency law regime, especially Japanese law involving insolvency proceedings. Also, by researching Japanese international insolvency cases under Japanese legal system, the Paper proposes that international suitability and global fitness in international insolvency regime in Korea. Although Korea established new universalism system with respect to international insolvency problems, the research and the study of effects and values of new system is still necessary.

Abstract

Cross-border insolvency cases can involve either a single case where the debtor's assets are located in multiple jurisdictions or the insolvency of multiple members of a cross-border group resulting in concurrent insolvency proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. In 2000, Japan enacted the Law of Recognition and Assistance for Foreign Insolvency Proceedings (LRAFIP) which adopted almost all the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, and abolished the notorious territorialism contained in Japanese insolvency laws for so many years. Since the LRAFIP became effective in 2002, only two cases have been filed, calling for recognition and assistance under the LRAFIP. Also, in Korea, from 2006, the new era of bankruptcy law governing international insolvency began. The previous three bankruptcy laws - Bankruptcy Act, Composition Act, and Corporate Reorganization Act - have been merged into, and were replaced by, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of Korea. One of the most important changes on the Act (DRBAK) is the introduction of “universalism” of an international insolvency part. This Paper introduces international insolvency law regime, especially Japanese law involving insolvency proceedings. Also, by researching Japanese international insolvency cases under Japanese legal system, the Paper proposes that international suitability and global fitness in international insolvency regime in Korea. Although Korea established new universalism system with respect to international insolvency problems, the research and the study of effects and values of new system is still necessary.

참고문헌 (81)

  1. 최준선, "국제거래법｣, 제6판", pp.431~ (2009), 삼영사
  2. 석광현, "채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률(이른바 통합도산법)에 따른 국제도산법", 국제거래법연구, 15(2), pp.319~384 (2006), 국제거래법학회
  3. 임치용, "파산법연구3", pp.300~ (2010), 박영사
  4. Samuel L. Bufford, "International Insolvency 3-" (2001), Federal Judicial Center
  5. Robert K. Rasmussen, "A New Approach To Transnational Insolvencies", Mich. J. Int'l L, 19(1, 2) (1997)
  6. Donald T. Trautman, "Four Models for International Bankruptcy", Am. J. Comp. L, 41 (1993)
  7. Lore Unt, "International Relations and International Insolvency Cooperation: Liberalism, Institutionalism, and Transnational Legal Dialogue", Law & Pol'y Int'l Bus, 28(1037) (1997)
  8. Jay Lawrence Westbrook, "Universal Priorities", Tex. Int'l L.J, 33(27, 39) (1998)
  9. JamesGarrett Van Osdell, "The Transnational Insolvency Dilemma: Congress Should Emphasize Comity of Nations", S.C. L. Rev, 49, pp.1327~1329 (1998)
  10. 석광현, "국제사법과 국제소송 - 제3권", pp.255~ (2004)
  11. AndréJ. Berends, "The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: A Comprehensive Overview", Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L, 6(309) (1998)
  12. 山本和彦, "UNCITRAL 國際倒産モデル法の解說(1)-(8)", NBL, 632(643) (1998), 商事法務硏究會
  14. Lynn M. LoPucki, "Cooperation in International Bankruptcy: A Post-Universalist Approach", Cornell L. Rev, 84(696, 726) (1999)
  15. 深山卓也, "国際倒産法の整備に関する法律の槪要, In ジュリスト", pp.41~ (2001), 有斐閣
  16. 貝瀬幸雄, "国際倒産法序説", pp.34~38 (1989), 東京大学出版会
  17. 松田安正, "海運更生会社所有船舶の外国における差押え", 海事法研究会誌, (73), pp.1~ (1986), 海事法研究会
  18. 竹内康二, "国際倒産への試論 一 属地主義, 国際破産管轄を中心 として", 法学志林, 76(2), pp.45~ (1978), 法学志林協会
  19. 谷口安平, "倒産手続と在外財産の差 押え,『手続法の理論と実践 (下) , In 吉川大二郎博士追悼論集", pp.578~592 (1981), 法律文化社
  20. 青 山善充, "倒産手続における外国人の地位, In 新ㆍ実務民事訴訟講座 7巻", pp.267~ (1982), 日本評論社
  21. 牛島信, "札幌トヨペッ トの倒産事件にみる会社更生手続の国際化", NBL, (259), pp.11~ (1983), 商事法務
  22. 松田安正, "海 運更生会社所有船舶の外国における差押え", 海事法研究会誌, (73), pp.1~ (1986), 海事法研究会
  23. 小林秀之, "BCCI事件と国際倒産法", 金融財政事情研究会, (1305), pp.9~ (1991)
  24. 小林秀之, "親子会社の国際倒産と管財人の対応", 判例タイムズ, (830), pp.144~ (1994), 判例タイムズ社
  25. 小林秀之, "国際倒産法とBCCI事件のその後 - 多国間倒産とプーリングㆍシステム", 金融法務事情, (1397), pp.18~ (1995), 金融財政事情研究会
  26. 小杉丈夫, "国際倒産と管財人業務", pp.246~ (1995), 法律業務の国際化
  27. 小杉丈夫, "国際倒産と証券取引 - ベアリングズ事件を契機 として", 金融法務事情, (1427), pp.17~ (1995), 金融財政事情研究会
  28. 坂井秀行, "マルコ一に関する国際倒産事件について,現代倒産法ㆍ会社法をめぐる諸問題, In 今中利昭先生還暦記念論文集", pp.133~ (1995), 民事法研究会
  29. 原田進安, "戦後第一の大型国際倒産の再建 例 - 三光汽船グノレ一プの 場合", 金融法務事情, (1367), pp.61~ (1993), 金融財政事情研究会
  30. 小杉丈夫, "国際倒産実務の現状 と問題点", 金融法務情, (1475), pp.102~ (1997), 金融財政事情研究会
  31. 中島健仁, "マルコー事件", 金融ㆍ商事判例, (1112), pp.35~ (2001), 経済法令研究会
  32. 池内雅利, "ヤオハン事件", 金融ㆍ商事判例, (1112), pp.41~ (2001), 経済法令研究会
  33. 宮崎誠, "三田工業事件", 金融ㆍ商事判例, (1112), pp.48~ (2001), 経済法令研究会
  34. 相鴻光江, "山一証券の倒産と国際倒産法の改正", 金融ㆍ商事判例, (1112), pp.56~ (2001), 経済法令研究会
  35. 竹下守夫, "国際倒産" (1991), 商事法務
  36. 竹内康二, "国際倒 産法の構築と展望" (1995), 成文堂
  37. 山本和彦, "国際倒産の立法論的課題, In ジュリスト 1111号" (1997), 有斐閣
  38. 石黒一憲, "国際金融倒産" (1995), 経済法令研究会
  39. 森下哲朗, "国際的銀行倒産に関する法的 一 考察 (1)~(19)", 国際商事法務, 23(12) (1995)
  40. "民事再生法, 平成11年(1999年)法律 第225号", ~
  41. "外国倒産処理手続の承認援助に関する法律", 平成12年(2000年)法律 第129号, ~
  42. 深山卓也, "新しい国際倒産法 制", pp.2~27 (2001), 金融財政事情研究会
  43. 山本和彦, "国際倒産法制", pp.10~ (2002), 商事法務
  44. 櫻井孝一, "倒産処理法制の理論と実務, In 金融ㆍ商事判例", pp.26~ (2006), 経済法令研究会
  45. 深山卓也, "民事再生法制定の 經過と法の槪要", ジュリスト, (1171), pp.6~7 (2000), 有斐閣
  46. 深山卓也, "外国倒産処理手続の承認援助に関する法律及び民事再生法 等の一部を改正する法律(国際倒産関係規定)の概要", 国際商事法務, 29(1)통권 : 463, pp.4~ (2001), 国際商事法研究所
  47. 深山, "上揭論文", pp.5~
  48. 山本和彦, "国際倒産法制(註18)", 11~
  49. 山本和彦, "国際倒産法制(註18)", 9~10
  50. 山本和彦, "新たな国際倒産法制(1)〜(5 ㆍ完)-UNCITRALモデル法と比較を中心に", NBL, (698), pp.6~, 商事法務
  51. 山本和彦, "新たな国際倒産法制(1)-UNCITRALモデル法と比較を中心に-", NBL, (698), pp.9~ (2000), 商事法務硏究会
  52. 青山善充, "倒産手続における属地主義の再検討", 民事訴訟法学会, (25), pp.125~ (1979)
  53. 竹下守夫, "前揭論文(註14)", 44~
  54. 石黒一憲, "国際私法と国際民事訴訟法との交錯 ― 国際私法上の 法律行為の方式をめぐって", pp.249~ (1988), 有信堂
  55. 山本和彦, "国際倒産法制(註18)", 140~
  56. 深山卓也, "外国倒産承認援助法等の概要", NBL, (707), pp.51~ (2000), 商事法務
  57. 深山卓也, "前揭書(註17)", 377~
  58. 高木新二郎, "倒産法の改正と運用", pp.197~ (2000), 商事法務研究会
  59. 山本和彦, "承認援助法(註51)", 58~
  60. 貝瀬幸雄,, "国際倒産法と比較法", pp.167~ (2003), 有斐閣
  61. 片山英二, "並行倒産の意義", 金融ㆍ商事判例, (1112), pp.104~ (2001), 経済法令研究会
  62. 田頭章一, "国際倒産法制について, In ジュリスト163号 (倒産判例百選, 第3版)", pp.253~ (2002), 有斐閣
  63. 竹内康二, "倒産判例ガイド, 第2版", pp.386~ (1999), 有斐閣
  64. "東京高判 1981. 1. 30. 決定 (昭和56年1月30日), (下民32巻 1~4号 10頁)", ~ (1981)
  65. 田代祐子, "酒造メーカーにみる外国倒産手続と承認援助手続", 事業再生と債権管理, (127), pp.103~110 (2010), 金融財政事情研究会
  66. "東京地判 2007. 8. 1. 決定 (平成19年8月1日), 公刊物未登載", ~ (2007)
  67. 석광현, "통합도산법(주2)", 328~
  68. 임채홍, "회사정리법 (상)", pp.124~ (1999)
  69. 박승두, "통합도산법 분석", pp.231~ (2005)
  70. 박준, "국제적 회사정리를 둘러싼 제문제", 민사판례연구, 16, pp.603~ (1994)
  71. 박훤일, "국제거래법", pp.452~ (1995)
  72. 석광현, "국 제도산법의 몇 가지 문제점", 인권과 정의, (241), pp.49~65 (1996)
  73. 손종학, "국제도산에 관 한 규정의 입법방안에 관한 연구", 인권과 정의, 통권 : 286, pp.69~86 (2000)
  74. 임채웅, "외국 도산절차가 국내에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구", 재판자료, 82, pp.52~ (1999)
  75. 한충수, "외국 도산절차의 승인과 집행", 국제사법연구, 6, pp.12~ (2001)
  76. 권택수, "파산법 제3조 제2항 소정의 외국에서 선고한 파산은 한국 내에 있는 재산에 대하여는 그 효력이 없다는 규정의 의미", 대법원판례해설, (45), pp.490~513 (2003)
  77. 석광현, "미국 파산법원의 재판의 효력과 파산법의 속지주의", 판례연구, 18, pp.201~232 (2004)
  78. 林 治 龍, "외국파산절차가 국내에 미치는 영향", 저스티스, (79), pp.173~199 (2004), 한국법학원
  79. 석광현, "통합도산법”(주2)", 364~
  80. 법무부, "채무자회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 해설", pp.199~ (2006), 법무부
  81. 박훤일, "국제도산절차와 포럼 쇼핑 문제", 국제거래법연구, 16(1), pp.267~289 (2007), 국제거래법학회

관련 논문AI추천

국제도산절차와 병행도산 - 2006년 일본 麻布(Azabu)건물 주식회사 도산사건을 중심으로 -김영주한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2012 · 제25권 제1호외국도산절차의 대내적 효력에 관한 비교 고찰김영주법학연구원 · 성균관법학2010 · 제22권 제3호A Comparative Analysis on Cross-border Insolvency Legislation of Japan, Korea, China and UNCITRAL Model Law오수근, 陈 景 善한국법제연구원 · Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation2023 · 제13권 제2호채무자회생법상 국제도산절차의 효력에 관한 입법적 과제김영주한국법정책학회 · 법과정책연구2012 · 제12권 제1호미국 연방파산법 제15장의 구조와 시사점김영주법학연구소 · 원광법학2012 · 제28권 제2호Cross-Border Insolvency Law in Korea임치용한국법제연구원 · Korea Legislation Research Institute Journal of Law and Legislation2019 · 제9권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)

프랑스 시청각최고위원회의 제재권에 관한 연구전영pp. 1-19미성년자의 생명권과 국가의 보호의무 -종교의 자유와 생명권의 충돌을 중심으로-한지혜pp. 21-45フランス法における恵与許可制の沿革 ─　コード・シーヴィル第910条論　─권철pp. 47-77侵权责任法与医疗过错民事责任박동매pp. 79-115韓ㆍ獨ㆍ日 遺留分 制限規定의 比較法的 考察양승욱, 소재선pp. 117-151
원문 보기