본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

제한되는 채권 처분의 범위 및 판단기준에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 선고 2011다87235 판결 관련 채권자대위권행사에 의한 처분금지효를 중심으로 -

Review regarding definition and standard of judgment of creditor’s restricted disposal

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

In the case that the disposal of credit is restricted for some purpose, it is important that establishing the standard of judgment of creditor’s restricted disposal. In this regard, this paper will review the definition of creditor’s restricted disposal in another case related to the restriction of credit disposal such as provisional attachment or attachment against credit, credit transfer and injunction for prohibition of disposal. In addition, this paper inter alia will review the case of Supreme Court on May 17, 2012(No. 2011Da87235 Unanimously Agreed Verdict) which recently changed its opinion in a case where the contract between the obligor and his/her obligor lost validity after the notice of the exercise of the ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligator’, due to the obligor’s non-performance of his contractual obligation. In this case, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that the obligor’s termination shall not be determined as a ‘disposal’. This case is based on the Article 405 (2) which restricts the obligor’s right to dispose the right which is the subject of an ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligor’. The Korea Supreme Court decided in such way because (i) the obligor’s non-performance of a contractual obligation itself cannot be determined as an active action which dismantles the credit; and (ii) legal termination is a proper lawful measure which the obligor can take against his/her obligor’s objective non-performance of its contractual obligation. However, it does not definitely declare the meaning of ‘Disposal’ in the Korean Civil Code §405. Therefore, we should examine it on the legal definition of disposal of obligor in the light of legislative purposes and effectiveness of subrogation right of obligee. There are some disposals that can be decided as the restricted disposal by obligor under the Article 405 (2) even though the disposal is made by obligor’s obligor. Therefore, this paper tries to categorize the new types of restricted creditor’s disposal under the Article 405 (2). In addition this paper tries to make a proposal new theory of legislation to overcome these problems.

Abstract

In the case that the disposal of credit is restricted for some purpose, it is important that establishing the standard of judgment of creditor’s restricted disposal. In this regard, this paper will review the definition of creditor’s restricted disposal in another case related to the restriction of credit disposal such as provisional attachment or attachment against credit, credit transfer and injunction for prohibition of disposal. In addition, this paper inter alia will review the case of Supreme Court on May 17, 2012(No. 2011Da87235 Unanimously Agreed Verdict) which recently changed its opinion in a case where the contract between the obligor and his/her obligor lost validity after the notice of the exercise of the ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligator’, due to the obligor’s non-performance of his contractual obligation. In this case, the Korea Supreme Court ruled that the obligor’s termination shall not be determined as a ‘disposal’. This case is based on the Article 405 (2) which restricts the obligor’s right to dispose the right which is the subject of an ‘obligee’s right of subrogation to obligor’. The Korea Supreme Court decided in such way because (i) the obligor’s non-performance of a contractual obligation itself cannot be determined as an active action which dismantles the credit; and (ii) legal termination is a proper lawful measure which the obligor can take against his/her obligor’s objective non-performance of its contractual obligation. However, it does not definitely declare the meaning of ‘Disposal’ in the Korean Civil Code §405. Therefore, we should examine it on the legal definition of disposal of obligor in the light of legislative purposes and effectiveness of subrogation right of obligee. There are some disposals that can be decided as the restricted disposal by obligor under the Article 405 (2) even though the disposal is made by obligor’s obligor. Therefore, this paper tries to categorize the new types of restricted creditor’s disposal under the Article 405 (2). In addition this paper tries to make a proposal new theory of legislation to overcome these problems.

참고문헌 (20)

  1. 민사판례연구회, , 민사판례연구, 11 (1991)
  2. 박준서, "주석민법 채권총칙(2)" (2000)
  3. 사법연수원, "민사집행법" (2005)
  4. 사법연수원, "보전소송" (2005)
  5. 이상훈, "민법주해(X)" (2011)
  6. 이재성, "이재성 판례평석집 X" (1989)
  7. 지원림, "민법강의" (2005)
  8. 김광태, "전득자의 대위에 의한 처분금지가처분의 효력", 민사판례연구, 14 (1992)
  9. 김동훈, "채권압류 후 기초적 계약관계의 처분의 효력", 민사법학, 61, pp.133~166 (2012), 한국민사법학회
  10. 김오수, "부동산에 대한 처분금지가처분과 등기", 사법논집, 20 (1989)
  11. 신종균, "대위에 의한 처분금지가처분의 효력과 전득자의 지위 보전", 인천법조, 4 (1998)
  12. 양창수, "채권자대위권에 의한 처분금지효가 제3채무자가 채무자의 채무불이행을 이유로 매매계약을 해제하는 것에도 미치는가?", 민법연구, 7 (2003)
  13. 오시영, "채권자대위권행사시 채무자의 처분권 제한을 중심으로", 판례연구, 17 (2003), 서울지방변호사회
  14. 윤경, "대위권 행사 후의 채무자의 처분행위의 제한에 상대방으로 하여금 해제권을 행사하도록 한 행위도 포함되는지 여부", 법률신문, ~ (2003)
  15. 이계정, "대위(代位)에 의한 처분금지가처분(處分禁止假處分)의 효력(效力)과 전득자(轉得者)의 권리보전방안(權利保全方案)에 관한 연구(硏究)", 52(1) (2003), 법조협회
  16. 이영환, "부동산처분금지가처분의 효력", 형평과 정의, (10) (1995)
  17. 이은영, "채권자대위권행사에 의한 처분금지효에서 ‘처분’의 의미 - 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 선고 2011다87235 전원합의체 판결에 대한 평석을 겸하여 -", 법학논고, (40), pp.443~470 (2012), 법학연구원
  18. 이재영, "채권자대위권의 행사와 채무자의 처분권 제한", 판례월보 (1988)
  19. 임채영, "채권자대위권 행사 통지 후 제한되는 처분과 계약의 해제: 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 선고 2011다8735 판결", CNU Law Review, (6) (2012)
  20. 최형기, "대위처분금지가처분의 효력 및 전득자권리의 보전방안", 법조, 38(8) (1989), 법조협회

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)