본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

부탁에 의한 사무처리와 보수청구권

Negotiorum Gestio and Claim for Remuneration

박영목
안암법학회 (Anam Law Association)|2012.09|안암법학 (Anam Law Review)|제39호|pp. 209-250|DOI 10.22822/alr..39.201209.209

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

사무관리시장실패보수청구권Market Failure계약교섭의 부당파기Unreasonable Repudiation of Contractual Negotiation규범적 해석의사실현사실적 계약관계기회주의의 위험가정적 계약논증비용Negotiorum GestioClaim for Remunerationnormative interpretationrealization of intentactual contractual relationshipRisk of OpportunismHypothetical ContractCost of Argumentation

초록

The Korean Supreme Court in its judgment of 14, January 2010(2007Da55477) made the decision that the principal(defendant) is liable for paying recovery to the manager(plaintiff) for his outlay. In this case the manager carried on the principal's affair with the expectation of entering into contract between them. Korean Supreme Court denied the completion of contract but acknowledged negotiorum gestio. And the Korean Supreme Court allowed the manager's claims for remuneration for services rendered by negotiorum gestio. So there should be no difference between claims for reimbursement of expenditures spent and claims for remuneration for services rendered. In principle the duty to benefit(remuneration) must be supported by contract. In this case it is not impossible but hard to recognize the completion of contract by means of normative interpretation or realization of intent. If the Korean Supreme Court has divided the contract and negotiorum gestio rigidly and has insisted that the remuneration could not arisen from negotiorum gestio, the Korean Supreme Court must demonstrate the completion of contract to accomplish sanctioning defendant, and this needs huge effort. If the defendant doesn’t have duty to pay the remuneration, defendant’s opportunistic behavior wasn’t sanctioned. the admission of remuneration by negotiorum gestio removes ambivalence of the result which might have arisen out of the difference of legal composition. So this process can reduce the cost of argumentation. In this point the negotiorum gestio has a function of mitigation of cost of argumentation(such as the actual contractual relationship. A part of literature opposes to extend the scope of application of negotiourm gestio. The main reason of this opinion is that the negotiorum gestio is rooted in altruism. But the historical review revealed that the main function of negotiorum gestio is allocation of goods. So it is porper to extend the scope of application of negotiourm gestio.

Abstract

The Korean Supreme Court in its judgment of 14, January 2010(2007Da55477) made the decision that the principal(defendant) is liable for paying recovery to the manager(plaintiff) for his outlay. In this case the manager carried on the principal's affair with the expectation of entering into contract between them. Korean Supreme Court denied the completion of contract but acknowledged negotiorum gestio. And the Korean Supreme Court allowed the manager's claims for remuneration for services rendered by negotiorum gestio. So there should be no difference between claims for reimbursement of expenditures spent and claims for remuneration for services rendered. In principle the duty to benefit(remuneration) must be supported by contract. In this case it is not impossible but hard to recognize the completion of contract by means of normative interpretation or realization of intent. If the Korean Supreme Court has divided the contract and negotiorum gestio rigidly and has insisted that the remuneration could not arisen from negotiorum gestio, the Korean Supreme Court must demonstrate the completion of contract to accomplish sanctioning defendant, and this needs huge effort. If the defendant doesn’t have duty to pay the remuneration, defendant’s opportunistic behavior wasn’t sanctioned. the admission of remuneration by negotiorum gestio removes ambivalence of the result which might have arisen out of the difference of legal composition. So this process can reduce the cost of argumentation. In this point the negotiorum gestio has a function of mitigation of cost of argumentation(such as the actual contractual relationship. A part of literature opposes to extend the scope of application of negotiourm gestio. The main reason of this opinion is that the negotiorum gestio is rooted in altruism. But the historical review revealed that the main function of negotiorum gestio is allocation of goods. So it is porper to extend the scope of application of negotiourm gestio.

참고문헌 (59)

  1. 곽윤직, "민법주해 II 총칙(2)" (1992), 박영사
  2. 곽윤직, "민법주해 XII 채권 (5)" (1997), 박영사
  3. 곽윤직, "민법주해 XVII 채권(10)" (2005), 박영사
  4. 권영준, "계약관계에 있어서 신뢰보호", 서울대학교 법학, 52(4), pp.215~278 (2011), 법학연구소
  5. 김서기, "An Examination on the Doctrine of Negotiorum Gestio- focusing on limiting the doctrine to its proper scope -", 법학논고, (34), pp.115~132 (2010), 법학연구원
  6. 김재형, "分讓契約의 當事者確定에 관한 문제", 저스티스, (97), pp.5~24 (2007), 한국법학원
  7. 김형배, (2001), 박영사
  8. 박영규, "사무관리에 있어서 관리의사와 보수청구권: 대법원 2010. 1. 14. 선고 2007다55477 판결을 계기로", 경희법학, 47(2), pp.179~206 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
  9. 박영목, "계약완성의무의 위반과 이행이익의 배상 - 대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 97다7943 판결 -", 고려법학, (59), pp.263~293 (2010), 법학연구원
  10. 박운삼, "사무관리에 있어서 사무관리의사와 보수청구에 관하여", 판례연구, 23 (2012)
  11. 박준서, "주석민법 채권각칙(1)" (1999), 한국사법행정학회
  12. 박준서, "주석민법 채권각칙(5)" (1999), 한국사법행정학회
  13. 백경일, "부당사무관리개념의 도입을 전제로 한 사무관리법의 새로운 체계구성 - 반의사사무관리와 불이익사무관리를 구분할 필요성에 관하여 -", 고려법학, (56), pp.181~220 (2010), 법학연구원
  14. 양형우, "사무관리의 성립요건에 관한 고찰", 강원법학, 16 (2003)
  15. 이병준, "사무관리의 성립과 노무 제공에 따른 보수청구권 － 대법원 2010.1.14. 선고 2007다55477 판결에 대한 평석 －", 안암법학, (34), pp.399~438 (2011), 안암법학회
  16. 이병준, "사무관리 제도의 기능과 그 적용범위 - 계약이 성립하지 않거나 무효인 경우를 중심으로 -", 고려법학, (56), pp.137~179 (2010), 법학연구원
  17. -, "민사법학", 2006, 319~360, pp.한국민사법학회
  18. 이영준, (2003), 박영사
  19. 임건면, "사무관리에 있어서의 관리의사", 재산법연구, 16(1) (1999)
  20. 장병일, "사무관리제도의 확장과 계약책임의 적용 -대법원 2010.1.14. 선고 2007다55477 판결을 중심으로-", 법학연구, (43), pp.123~147 (2011), 한국법학회
  21. 장준혁, "프랑스채권법 개정시안에서의 준계약", 민사법학, 45(2), pp.293~320 (2009), 한국민사법학회
  22. 조순, "경제학원론, 제5판" (1993), 법문사
  23. 최광준, "「의사실현에 의한 계약의 성립」과 「사실적 계약관계」의 공통성", 법학연구, (17), pp.425~443 (2004), 한국법학회
  24. 최광준, "獨逸 法學 理論 硏究의 成果와 敎訓 : 라렌쯔의 「社會定型的 行爲論」", 비교사법, 11(4), pp.263~289 (2004), 한국비교사법학회
  25. 최신섭, "묵시적 의사표시와 그 효과", 비교사법, 7(2) (2000)
  26. 최종길, "사실적 계약관계에 관한 약간의 고찰 -법률행위의 무효, 취소의 제한이론을 중심으로-", 법학, (5) (1963), 서울대학교
  27. 이종인, "法經濟學" (2000), 比峰出版社
  28. von Bar, "Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law : Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), vol 3" (2009)
  29. Bussani, "Liability for Pure Financial Loss in Europe: An Economic Restatement", Am. J. Comp. L, 51(Winter), pp.113~ (2003)
  30. Coleman, "A Bargaining Theory Approach to Default Provisions and Disclosure Rules in Contract Law", Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 12, pp.639~ (1989)
  31. Dagan, "Defense of the Good Samaritan", Mich. L. Rev, 97, pp.1152~ (1999)
  32. Dorn, "Strukturgleichheit zwischen faktischen Vertragsverhältnissen und Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", NJW, pp.799~ (1964)
  33. Erman, "Faktische Vertragsverhältnisse oder Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", NJW, pp.421~ (1965)
  34. Gold, "„GoA“ bei nichtigen Werkverträgen?", JA, pp.206~ (1994)
  35. Harrison, "Law and Economics" (2002)
  36. Henssler, "Anspruchsgrundlagen im Recht der Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", JuS, pp.924~ (1991)
  37. Hermalin, "Contract Law, In Handbook of Law and Economics Vol 1" (2007)
  38. Köhler, "Arbeitsleistungen als “Aufwendungen”?", JZ, pp.359~ (1985)
  39. Köndgen, "Die Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag im Wandel der Zeiten – Versuch einer Ehrenrettung, In Rechtsgeschichte und Privatrechts- dogmatik", pp.371~ (1999), von Zimmermann
  40. Kötz, "Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag aus rechtsökonomischer Sicht", pp.583~ (1999), FS für Großfeld
  41. Landes, "Salvors, Finders, Good Samaritans, and Other Rescuers: An Economic Study of Law and Altruism", J. Legal Stud, 7, pp.83~ (1978)
  42. Larenz, "Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 6. Aufl" (1991)
  43. Long, Jr., "A Theory of Hypothetical Contract", Yale L. J, 94, pp.415~ (1984)
  44. Lorenz, "Gescheiterte Vertragsbeziehungen zwischen Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag und Bereicherungsrecht: späte Einsicht des BGH?", NJW, pp.883~ (1996)
  45. Lorenzen, "The Negotiorum Gestio in Roman and Modern Civil Law", Cornell L. Q, 13, pp.190~ (1928)
  46. "MünchKomm", Kramer(2001), vor § 116, 2001
  47. "MünchKomm", Seiler(2009), § 670, 2009
  48. Otto, "Ausgleichansprüche des Geschäftsführers", JuS, pp.684~ (1984)
  49. "RGRK", Steffen, § 670
  50. Schäfer, "Lehrbuch der ökonomischen Analyse des Zivilrechts, 4. Aufl" (2005)
  51. Schulze, "Anmerkung", JZ, pp.523~ (2000)
  52. Schwark, "Der Fremdgeschäftsführungswille bei der Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag", JuS, pp.321~ (1984)
  53. Seiler, "Die Vergütung von Dienstleistungen des Geschäftsfühers ohne Auftrag", pp.239~ (1984), FS Hübner
  54. Staudinger, "vorbem zu § 677 ff", ~ (2006)
  55. Wehrt, "Das ökonomische Vertragsmodell: Theorie und Anwendung: in", KritV, pp.358~ (1992)
  56. Wendlandt, "„Ein bisschen über den Rubikon” - Der BGH und die GoA des vertraglich pflichtengebundenen Geschäftsführers", NJW, pp.985~ (2004)
  57. Wollschläger, "Die Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag" (1976)
  58. Wonnell, "Replacing the Unitary Principle of Unjust Enrichment", Emory L. J, 45, pp.153~ (1996)
  59. Zimmermann, "The Law of Obligations" (1996)

관련 논문AI추천

An Examination on the Doctrine of Negotiorum Gestio- focusing on limiting the doctrine to its proper scope -김서기법학연구원 · 법학논고2010 · 제34호사무관리법의 적용범위 확장과 그 제한 “대법원 2010. 1. 14. 선고 2007다55477”을 중심으로진도왕민사법의 이론과 실무학회 · 민사법의 이론과 실무2014 · 제17권 제2호사무관리의 성립과 노무 제공에 따른 보수청구권 － 대법원 2010.1.14. 선고 2007다55477 판결에 대한 평석 －이병준안암법학회 · 안암법학2011 · 제34호사무관리에 대한 비교법적 고찰 - 유럽과 일본을 중심으로 -이은영한국사법학회 · 비교사법2015 · 제22권 제4호2010년 상법총칙·상행위법 판례의 동향과 그 연구장덕조한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2011 · 제24권 제2호부진정사무관리와 준사무관리의 포섭범위에 관한 고찰변우주민사법의 이론과 실무학회 · 민사법의 이론과 실무2014 · 제17권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

사회적 기업과 기업의 사회적 책임의 관련성에 관한 소고강영기pp. 1-38독일 및 유럽연합에서의 고아저작물 이용에 관한 입법 동향안효질pp. 39-78보험모집조직에 관한 법률적 문제유주선pp. 79-108북한 민사관계법률에 대한 분석과 남한법률과의 비교법적 고찰김경욱, 김정환pp. 109-174허가받지 않은 토지신탁의 채권적 효력김남근pp. 175-208
원문 보기