채무자회생법의 공법상 계약에의 적용에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2021. 5. 6. 선고 2017다273441 전원합의체 판결에 대한 평석 -

Abstract

Recently, the Supreme Court of Korea dealt with the issue whether termination of executory contract under ‘Act on the ebtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy’ (Insolvency Act) Article 335 (1) can be applied to concession contract under ‘Act on the Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure’(PPP Act). (The Supreme Court of Korea May 6, 2021, 2017Da273441) Concession contract has been evaluated as ‘public contract’ in case law and literature, and there was hot debate on the effect of ‘public law’ nature of this contract to the interpretation of the Insolvency Act among majority, concurring, and dissenting opinion in this ruling. Majority and concurring opinion agree in that they all deny termination right under Insolvency Act Article 335 (1). However the ground for this result is differenct: majority opinion has the view that concession contract under PPP Act does not fall within the concept of ‘executory contract’, while concurring opinion argues Insolvency Act Article 335 (1) does not apply to concession contract which has public law nature. Dissenting opinion acknowledges the application of Insolvency Act Article 335 to concession contract and also termination rights based on that clause. Furtheremore, dissenting opinion asserts that public law nature of the concession contract does not make effect to this conclusion. Concurring opinion can be evaluated positively in that it adopts public law perspective on issue of court jurisdiction and analogical application of private law to administrative relationship. However, it is not persuasive that public law nature of the contract leads to the non-application of Insolvency Act Article 335 (1). Although ‘management and operation right’ of PPP asset is deemed as property right under PPP Act, this right is the consideration for the construction of asset through private finace. Therefore, concession contract should be deemed as executory contract and termination right should be also acknowledged. In this respect, dissenting opinion is persuasive. However, logic of the dissenting opinion is weak in that they do not reflect the public law nature of concession contract in full. Public law nature of the contract does not automatically mean the superior position of public entities, and the balance between public interest and protection of rights of citizens should be realized. In application of Insolvency Act Article 335 (1), interests of public entities, conessionaire, and lenders should be balanced. Ultimately, public contract should be seen from the perspective that comprehensive order in which public law and private law complement with each other.