본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

전용물소권에 관한 판례 동향과 그 인정근거 재검토

A Review of the trend of judgment on “actio de in rem verso” and its basis for recognition

박석일|정상현
민사법의 이론과 실무학회 (The Association of Theory and Practice of Private Law)|2020.04|민사법의 이론과 실무|제23권 제2호|pp. 31-82|DOI dx.doi.org/10.21132/minsa.2020.23.2.02

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

직접소권형평주석학파전용물소권condictio sine causa부당이득반환소권목적부도달의 부당이득반환소권무원인의 부당이득반환소권판덱텐의 현대적 관용로마법의 계수계약의 연쇄계약의 상대적 효력actio de in rem versousus modernus pandektarum준전용물소권채무법현대화Rezeption der römischen Rechtschaînes de contratsaction directela relativité du contrat

초록

전용물소권에 관한 우리민법의 근거 역시 간접적으로 발견할 수 있다. 민법 제747조 제2항이 규정하고 있는 악의의 무상취득자에 대한 최초 손실자의 부당이득반환청구권은 그 입법취지와 관계없이 계약의 당사자가 아닌 제3자 사이에 인정되는 것으로 전형적인 전용물소권의 모습이 투영된다. 부합 등 첨부를 통하여 소유권을 잃은 자가 소유권 취득자를 상대로 부당이득반환을 청구할 수 있는 민법 제261조에서 부합된 물건의 소유자가 제3자인 경우에도 마찬가지이다. 이와 같은 규정이 없더라도 전용물소권은 부당이득반환청구권의 본질을 가지므로 민법 제741조가 충분한 근거로서 작용할 수 있다고 생각한다. 나아가 대법원이 전용물소권을 부정한 2002년 판결 이후에도 이를 인정하는 다수의 판결을 내보이고 있는 것도 부정할 수 없다.

Abstract

Although one party to the contract fulfills its obligation to pay, the performance may result in a benefit to a third person who is not the other party to the contract. At that time, there is the right of the contracting party who has not received the payment, to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the third person. This is the right to claim the return of benefits transferred to others and it was called “actio de in rem verso” in Roman law. Sons or slaves whose rights were not recognized could enter into contracts and the head of household or the owner to take the profit transferred through that contract. At this time, the other party was entitled to claim the performance in accordance contract against the head of household or owner. Later, son's capacity for rights was recognized and slavery became meaningless. In the era of common law, the relative effect of contracts began to be recognized as a general principle of civil law. Then, the “actio de in rem verso” were no longer dealt with under contract, but in terms of claims for unjust enrichment and return. Currently in Germany, France, Japan, and Korea, this is also discussed as part of the claim for the return of unjust enrichment. Our Supreme Court completely denied the “actio de in rem verso” in 2002. This is because it is contrary to the basic principle of contract law. The loser passes the risk of the contract to the beneficiary. This makes the loser superior to the general creditors of the intermediary. This violates the right of defense that the beneficiary can assert against the intermediary. The Supreme Court has denied the “actio de in rem verso” on this ground. However, as we have seen earlier, “actio de in rem verso” only have the nature of the right to claim unjust enrichment and return since common law. It is no longer a contractual right. The recognition of this right shall then depend on whether it has met the requirements for establishing the right to claim for unjust enrichment. Nevertheless, it is questionable that our theories and precedents to deny “actio de in rem verso” because this right is not in accordance with the principles of contract law. I think it is necessary to review “actio de in rem verso” positively if considering the theoretical aspect of the law in order to solve the legal relationship in Korean civil law. Article 747 (2) of the Korean Civil Code provides that the first loser has the right to claim for unjust enrichment against the beneficiary who knows that there is no legal cause and acquires a benefit of a free from intermediary. Regardless of their legislative intent, this provision represents a typical “actio de in rem verso” between persons who are not parties to a contract. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Supreme Court has issued a number of positive rulings on “actio de in rem verso” after the 2002 ruling which denies.

참고문헌 (114)

  1. 강현중, "주석민법 채권각칙(5)" (2004), 한국사법행정학회
  2. 곽윤직, "채권각론" (2000), 박영사
  3. 김상용, "채권각론(하)" (1998), 법문사
  4. 김상용, "민법개론" (2015), 화산미디어
  5. 김우진, "所有權留保附賣買 目的物의 附合과 不當利得", 민사판례연구, (33), pp.455~492 (2011), 민사판례연구회
  6. 김주수, "채권각론" (1997), 삼영사
  7. 김준호, "민법강의" (2017), 법문사
  8. 김증한, "채권각론" (2006), 박영사
  9. 김판기, "전용물소권-일본의 판례와 학설을 중심으로", 법조, 55(10), pp.132~155 (2006), 법조협회
  10. 김형배, "사무관리⋅부당이득" (2003), 박영사
  11. 고영남, "민법학" (2010), 신조사
  12. 박세민, "부당이득법의 인과관계와 법률상 원인－ 「편취금전에 의한 채무변제」에 관한 대법원판결을 예시로 －", 민사법학, (41), pp.87~128 (2008), 한국민사법학회
  13. 박세민, "양도에 의한 선의취득과 선의취득자의 부당이득", 비교사법, 18(4), pp.1121~1166 (2011), 한국사법학회[DOI]
  14. 송덕수, "신민법강의" (2019), 박영사
  15. 양창수, "민법주해XVII, 채권(10)" (2005), 박영사
  16. 양창수, "일반부당이득법에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1987
  17. 양형우, "민법의 세계" (2019), PNC
  18. 오시영, "민법강의" (2006), 학현사
  19. 이병준, "소위 전용물소권과 민법 제203조의 비용상환청구권", JURIST, (410) (2006), 청림인터렉티브
  20. 이병준, "부당이득에서 급부, 침해 그리고 단순한 이익의 귀속 - 대법원 2010. 3. 11. 선고 2009다98706 판결에 대한 평석 -", 재산법연구, 27(1), pp.27~60 (2010), 한국재산법학회
  21. 이승현, "점유자의 비용상환청구권과 전용물소권의 관계에 관한 일고찰", 성균관법학, 27(2), pp.111~143 (2015), 법학연구원[DOI]
  22. 이은영, "채권각론" (2004), 박영사
  23. 이태재, "채권각론" (1990), 진명문화사
  24. 장재현, "채권법각론" (2006), 경북대학교출판부
  25. 정태윤, "전용물소권에 관한 일고찰", 비교사법, 9(1) (2002), 한국비교사법학회
  26. 제철웅, "3자관계에서의 부당이득: 특히 전용물소권의 사안을 중심으로", 저스티스, 67, pp.54~79 (2002), 한국법학원
  27. 지원림, "민법강의" (2017), 홍문사
  28. 지원림, "민법원론" (2019), 홍문사
  29. 최병조, "로마법강의" (1999), 박영사
  30. 현병철, "전용물소권", 한양대법학논총, 12 (1995), 한양대학교법학연구소
  31. 현승종, "로마법" (1996), 법문사
  32. 홍성주, "전용물소권과 민법 제203조 소정의 비용상환청구권", 판례연구, 14 (2003), 부산판례연구회
  33. マックス⋅カーザー, "ローマ司法概説" (1979), 創文社
  34. 加藤雅信, "事務管理⋅不當利得⋅不法行爲" (2002), 有斐閣
  35. 加藤雅信, "財産法の體系と不當利得法の構造" (1986), 有斐閣
  36. 岡孝, "日本民法學史⋅通史" (1997), 信山社
  37. 谷口知平, "不當利得の硏究" (1949), 有斐閣
  38. 廣中俊雄, "ブルド-ザ-⋅ケ-スの問題性", 法學セミナ-, (215) (1974)
  39. 廣中俊雄, "第九回帝國會議の民法審議" (1986), 有斐閣
  40. 近江幸治, "民法講義IV, 事務管理⋅不當利得⋅不法行爲" (2004), 成文堂
  41. 磯村哲, "法律學一五○, 民法(債務法)11, 不當利得", 法學セミナ-, (23) (1958)
  42. 磯村哲, "不當利得⋅事務管理⋅轉用物訴權の關係と分化-不當利得法の構造その地位-(一)(二)", 法學論叢, 50(4) (1944)
  43. 磯村哲, "直接利得の要求に就いて-利得の不當性への問題的關聯性-", 法學論叢, 47(5) (1942)
  44. 磯村哲, "不當利得論考" (2006), 新靑出版
  45. 內田貴, "民法II, 債權各論" (1997), 東京大學出版會
  46. 達田新一, "代理理論の硏究" (1984), 有斐閣
  47. 藤原正則, "不當利得法と擔保物權法の交錯" (1997), 成文堂
  48. 藤原正則, "不當利得法" (2002), 信山社
  49. 四宮和夫, "事務管理⋅不當利得⋅不法行爲(上卷)" (1995), 靑林書院
  50. 山田幸二, "利得の正當化に關する一考察(二⋅完) : 不當利得における三角關係を中心に", 民商法雜誌, 93(6) (1986)
  51. 三宅正男, "不當利得⋅事務管理の硏究3(谷口知平敎授還曆)" (1972), 有斐閣
  52. 船田亨二, "ロ-マ法, 第3卷(私法) 第2分冊(債權)" (1968), 岩波書店
  53. 松坂佑一, "不當利得論" (1991), 有斐閣
  54. 水本浩, "民法セミナ-7" (1985), 一粒社
  55. 我妻榮, "債權各論, 民法講義(下一)" (1980), 岩波書店
  56. 於保不二雄, "轉用物訴權に就て", 法學論叢, 35(2) (1936)
  57. 鈴木祿弥, "債權法講義" (1990), 創文社
  58. 川角由和, "不當利得とはなにか" (2004), 日本評論社
  59. 平田健治, "フオン⋅トゥールの「転用物訴権」論について(一)", 法政理論, 20(3) (1988), 新潟大学法学会
  60. 好美淸光, "不當利得法の新しい動向について(下)", 判例タイムズ, (387) (1979)
  61. Alex Weill, "Droit civil, Les obligations" (1986), Dalloz
  62. Andreas von Tuhr, "Actio de in rem verso, Zugleich ein Beitrage zur Lehre von der Geschäftsführung" (1895)
  63. Anne-Marie Romani, "Enrichissement sans cause, Répertoire de droit civil, T.V, Encyclopédie juridique" (2003), Dalloz
  64. Aubry, "Cours de droit civil français, T.IX" (1917), L.G.D.J.
  65. Benno Mugdan, "Die gesamten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich, Bd.II, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse" (1899), von Decker's Verlag
  66. Bernhard Windscheid, "Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Bd.II" (1906), Rütten & Loening
  67. Betrand Fages, "Droit des obligations" (2009), L.G.D.J.
  68. Boris Starck, "Droit civil, T.II, Obligations" (1998), Litec
  69. Bundesminister der Justiz, "Abschlußbericht der Kommission zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts" (1992), Bundesanzeiger
  70. Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, "Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 70" (1973), C.H.Beck
  71. Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, "Schuldrechtsreform 2002, Zusammengestellt und eingeleitet" (2002), C.H.Beck
  72. Daniel Mainguy, "L’actualité des actions directes dans les chaînes de contrats", Études offertes à Jacques Béguin, ~ (2005)
  73. Detlef König, "Der Bereicherungsanspruch gegen den Drittempfänger einer Vertragsleistung nach französischem Recht", pp.1967
  74. Detlef König, "Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung, Gutachten und Vorschläge zur Überarbeitung des Schuldrechts, Bd.II" (1981), Bundesanzeiger
  75. Detlef Liebs, "Römisches Recht" (1993), Vandenhoeck
  76. Dieter Reuter, "Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung, Handbuch des Schuldrechts, Bd.4" (1983), J.C.B.Mohr
  77. Ernst von Caemmerer, "Bereichrung und unerlaubte Handlung, Bd.I, Rechtsvergleichung und Schuldrecht" (1968), Mohr Siebeck
  78. François Terré, "Droit civil, Les obligations" (2009), Dalloz
  79. Franz Leonhard, "Allgemeines Schuldrecht des BGB" (1929), Duncker & Humblot
  80. Franz Wieacker, "Privatrechtsgeschichte der Neuzeit" (1967), Venden
  81. Fritz Schulz, "Classical Roman Law" (1954), Clarendon Press
  82. Fritz Schwarz, "Die Grundlage der condictio im klassischen Römischen Recht" (1952), Böhlau
  83. Georges Ripert, "La régle morale dans les obligations civiles" (1949), L.G.D.J.
  84. Gerhard Dulckeit, "Römische Rechtsgeschichte" (1966), C.H.Beck
  85. Gustav von Mandry, "Das gemeine Familiengüterrecht mit Ausschluß des ehelichen Güterrechtes" (1995), C.H.Beck
  86. Hans-Georg Koppensteiner, "Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung" (1975), Walter de Gruyter
  87. Heinrich Honsell, "Die Rückabwicklung sittenwidriger oder verbotener Geschäfte" (1974), C.H.Beck
  88. Henri, Léon, "Leçons de droit civil, T.II" (1966), Éditions Montchrestien
  89. Hermann Witte, "Die Bereicherungsklagen des gemeinen Rechts" (1859), Halle
  90. Hugo Grotius, "Zweites Buch Bd.I" (1950)
  91. Jacques Flour, "Droit civil, Les obligations, 1-L'acte juridique" (1994), Armand Colin
  92. Jean Carbonnier, "Droit civil 4-Obligations" (1985), Press Universitaires de France
  93. Joanna Schmidt-Szalewski, "Droit des contrats" (1989), Litec
  94. Karl Georg von Wächter, "Pandekten, Bd.II" (1880)
  95. Karl Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrecht Bd.Ⅱ, Halbband 2, Besonderer Teil" (1994), C.H.Beck
  96. Marcel Planiol, "Traitré pratique de droit civil français, T.VI, Obligations" (1954), L.G.D.J.
  97. Marcel Planiol, "Traitré pratique de droit civil français, T.VII, Obligations" (1954), L.G.D.J
  98. Max Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht" (2008), C.H.Beck
  99. Max Kaser, "Römisches Privatrecht" (1968), C. H. Beck
  100. "Motive zu dem Entwürfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs für das deutsche Reich, Bd.II, Recht der Schuldverhältnisse" (1888)
  101. Pascal Puig, "Études de droit de la consommation, Liber amicorum Jean Calais Auloy" (2004), Dalloz
  102. Paul Frédéric Girard, "Manuel élémentaire droit romain" (1929), Librairie Arthur Rousseau
  103. Paul Oertmann, "Schädigungen Dritter aus Vertragsverletzungen, Leipziger Zeitschrift für Deutsches Recht(LZ)" (1931)
  104. Peter Schlechtreim, "Schuldrecht, Besonderer Teil" (1998), Mohr Siebeck
  105. Reiner Schulze, "Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrech" (2001), Mohr Siebeck
  106. Rémy Cabrillac, "Droit des obligations" (1995), Dalloz
  107. Robert Villers, "Rome et droit privé", pp.1977
  108. Robert von Mayr, "Die condictio des Römischen Privatrechts" (1900), Duncker & Humblot
  109. Rolf Schmitt, "Die Subsidiarität der Bereicherungsansprüche" (1969), Gieseking
  110. Samuel Pufendorf, "Of the Law of Nature and Nations"
  111. Schlebrügge, "Beiträge zur Erläuterung des deutschen Rechts, Juristische Zeitschriften des 19.Jahrhunderts" (1876), Verlag von Franz
  112. Théodore P. Théodoroff, "Théodoroff, L'enrichissement sans cause", pp.1907
  113. Ulrich von Lübtow, "Beiträge zur Lehre von der condictio nach römischem und geltendem Recht" (1952), Duncker & Humblot
  114. William Warwick Buckland, "A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian" (1950), Cambridge at the University Press

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

미국 재산법상 장래권에 관한 小考김현수pp. 1-30독일법상 손해분담협약과 손해조정성대규pp. 83-117주유소 석유제품 소비자의 피해 유형 및 피해구제 방안에 관한 고찰강혁신, 연규황pp. 119-143통일 후「북한지역 협동농장 처리를 위한 특별법」에 관한 연구김성욱, 오미진pp. 145-174대학교수의 업무상저작물에 관한 연구 -각 대학의 지식재산권 규정을 중심으로-김인유pp. 175-211
원문 보기