본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

집합채권의 양도담보에 관한 법적 문제

Legal issues concerning the collective claims security by means of transfer

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Abstract

The term "collective claims security by means of transfer" can be defined as a non-typical security for which a debtor provides security to a creditor plural nominative claims including nominative claims which will accrue in the future in advance in the gross. While Korean Civil Act does not have provisions for "collective claims security by means of transfer", academic theories and judicial precedent have recognized the effectiveness of it. Collective claims security by means of transfer can be classified into two types of establishment. The one type is called a main contract type in which a debtor transfers collective claims at the time of transfer security contract. The other type is called a reserved type or a condition precedent type in which transfer for security shall enter into force at the time of happening of certain causes like financial crisis of a debtor. Judicial precedent requires the possibility of coming into existence of claims for a future claim, to be the object of transfer for security. However, it is pointless and improper to require the above possibility for requisites of effectiveness of security by means of transfer. I agree with opinions that the possibility of recognition of the identity of a future claim which can be distinguished from other claims by common sense with the transfer security contract itself is enough to be the object of security by means of transfer. Indeed we cannot deny the possibility of not satisfying the requisites for setting up actions at the time of the contract of collective claims security by means of transfer until the time of financial crisis of a debtor, and later meeting the requirements of it at the time of the financial crisis, as it can be the object of the right to set aside under bankruptcy laws, some try to evade being the object of the right to set aside by concluding a contract of a reserved or a condition precedent type, drawing the time of coming into force of security by means of transfer near the time of meeting the requirements of it. Judicial precedent has excluded these cases from the objects of the right to set aside on the grounds that these are reserved type collective claims transfer for security. However, for the conclusion whether these are reserved type of transfer for security, more strict standards shall be applied. In addition, in case of a reserved or condition precedent type of transfer for security, if the motive of the transfer security contract is to deviate from the fundamental principles of bankruptcy laws, it shall be the object of the right to set aside, so as not to infringe unreasonably on the interests of general creditors in the bankruptcy procedure.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. 곽윤직, (1995), 박영사
  2. 곽윤직, "물권법" (2008), 박영사
  3. 곽윤직, "채권총론" (2001), 박영사
  4. 김형배, "민법학강의 - 이론․판례․사례-" (2009), 신조사
  5. 이영준, "물권법" (2001), 박영사
  6. 이은영, "채권총론" (2000), 박영사
  7. -동산․채권 등 집행, , 2003
  8. 김성균, "금융제공수단으로서 동산·채권양도등기제도에 대한 고찰", 상사판례연구, 19(1), pp.279~326 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
  9. 김인유, "유동집합채권 양도담보의 유효성 및 대항요건", 해사법연구, 11(1) (1999), 한국해사법학회
  10. 김재형, "담보제도의 개혁방안 - 동산 및 채권 담보를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (106), pp.655~684 (2008), 한국법학원
  11. 김재형, "倒産節次에서 擔保權者의 地位", 민사판례연구, (28), pp.1098~1154 (2006), 민사판례연구회
  12. 김재형, "유엔채권양도협약의 국내법적 수용문제", 국제거래법연구, 15(1), pp.67~90 (2006), 국제거래법학회
  13. 김재형, "근저당권부채권의 유동화에 관한 법적 문제", 서울대학교 법학, 43(1) (2002)
  14. 배병일, "집합채권의 양도담보" (1995), 박영사
  15. 신봉근, "유동집합채권의 양도담보", 인권과 정의, (344), pp.61~78 (2005), 대한변호사협회
  16. 심준보, "회사정리법상 대항요건의 부인", 대법원판례해설 (2004)
  17. 오영준, "집합채권양도담보와 도산절차의 개시", 사법논집, 43 (2006)
  18. 유남근, "담보목적의 채권양도(채권양도담보)의 설정과 그 피담보채무가 변제된 경우의 법률관계", 판례연구, 14 (2003)
  19. 梁彰洙, "將來債權의 讓渡", 저스티스, 73, pp.26~47 (2003), 한국법학원
  20. 임지웅, "담보권실행행위에 대한 회사정리법상 부인권의 행사", 판례연구, 17 (2004)
  21. 이진만, "統合倒産法上의 否認權 - 否認의 對象을 中心으로 -", 민사판례연구, 28(28), pp.863~938 (2006), 민사판례연구회
  22. 이철원, "집합채권양도담보와 도산법상의 부인권", 석사, pp.2006
  23. 이철원, "集合債權의 讓渡擔保와 會社整理法上 否認權 行使의 可否", 민사판례연구, (28), pp.442~493 (2006), 민사판례연구회
  24. 최수정, "집합채권양도담보의 해석을 둘러싼 제문제", 민사법학, (26), pp.319~350 (2004), 한국민사법학회
  25. 加藤新太郞, "債權․動産擔保の效力" (2001), 新日本法規
  26. 鈴木祿弥, "金融取引法大系第5卷擔保․保證", 有斐閣
  27. 楠本新, "集合債權の讓渡擔保", 裁判實務大系, 14 (1991)
  28. 角紀代惠, "流動債權讓渡擔保をめぐる昏迷", 別冊NBL, (31) (1995)
  29. 角紀代惠, "債權非典型擔保", 別冊NBL, (31) (1995), 商事法務硏究會
  30. 千葉惠美子, "いわゆる流動型集合債權讓渡擔保と對抗要件", ジュリスト, (1223) (2002)
  31. 志田博文, "集合動産, 集合債權と讓渡擔保" (1990), 新日本法規
  32. 池田眞朗, "債權流動化と包括的特別法の立法提案(上)", NBL, (619) (1997), 商事法務硏究會
  33. 池田眞朗, "將來債權讓渡の效力(下)", NBL, (666) (1999), 商事法務硏究會
  34. 椿壽夫, "集合(流動)債權讓渡擔保の有效性と效力(上)", ジュリスト, (1102) (1996)
  35. 道垣內弘人, "將來債權の包括的讓渡の有效性と對抗要件", ジュリスト, (1165) (1999)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)