예금채권에 대한 신탁법의 적용과 문제점 - 민사신탁의 기반확대를 위한 관점에서 -
The Ramifications of Applying Trust Law to Deposit Bonds - Seeking to expand the scope of civil trust -
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Before the Trust Act is revised, an examination of the ramifications of applying Trust Law to deposit bonds, which is one of the most commonly used means,should be taken place in order to prepare for the increased demand of the use of the trust system and implied trust, in light of its flexibility, independence of trust property and insolvency protection that enacts when the trustee is bankrupt. In this effect, not only will we be able to prepare for the task of revising the Trust Act, but we will also be ready, before civil trust is fully utilized, for the task of addressing the problems that may occur when the legal theories of trust law are applied to the area of civil trust. Taking this point in account, this paper will examine the trust law principles concerning deposit bonds, regarding mainly civil trust. First, relevant examples where deposit bonds may become problematic in relation to trusts were sorted and presented according to its type. In this process the relevant issues were also pointed out. Second, regarding the establishment of implied trust, a settlor’s intent to create an implied trust is required. However if such intention may be inferred from the settlor’s determination for the independence of the trust property and the separation of the trust property from the trustee’s property, that is sufficient also. Third, it was pointed out that when a trustee of an express trust or implied trust manages trust property by opening a bank account in a deposit bond form,and does not state it as being trust property, in account of the real name financial trust system, trust law principles should be applied over the principle of attribution to the depositor. Fourth, concerning the issue of the public notice of deposit bonds, there was little change in the amendment. However, concerning the issue of offset, it could be understood that the offset expectations of financial institutions, that is in judging whether they are in good faith or without fault, should be assessed differently in contrast to a laymen’s offset expectation, as the former are financial experts. Therefore, it can be concluded that when a trustee opens a bank account in his/her own name to manage trust property, in order for financial institutions to assert and prove that they are in good faith and without fault on the matter that this account is not a trust account, the standard of care should be raised so that financial institutions are obliged to inquire the depositor whether the contents are of trust property. Fifth, according to the current and the revised draft of the Trust Act, when it is notified to the financial institution that the account is indeed a trust account,the matter of whether it can be acknowledged as a savings account trust is negative, unlike the United States. However, under the revised draft of the Trust Act, it can be said that this serves as a similar function as a Will substitutes trust.
Abstract
Before the Trust Act is revised, an examination of the ramifications of applying Trust Law to deposit bonds, which is one of the most commonly used means,should be taken place in order to prepare for the increased demand of the use of the trust system and implied trust, in light of its flexibility, independence of trust property and insolvency protection that enacts when the trustee is bankrupt. In this effect, not only will we be able to prepare for the task of revising the Trust Act, but we will also be ready, before civil trust is fully utilized, for the task of addressing the problems that may occur when the legal theories of trust law are applied to the area of civil trust. Taking this point in account, this paper will examine the trust law principles concerning deposit bonds, regarding mainly civil trust. First, relevant examples where deposit bonds may become problematic in relation to trusts were sorted and presented according to its type. In this process the relevant issues were also pointed out. Second, regarding the establishment of implied trust, a settlor’s intent to create an implied trust is required. However if such intention may be inferred from the settlor’s determination for the independence of the trust property and the separation of the trust property from the trustee’s property, that is sufficient also. Third, it was pointed out that when a trustee of an express trust or implied trust manages trust property by opening a bank account in a deposit bond form,and does not state it as being trust property, in account of the real name financial trust system, trust law principles should be applied over the principle of attribution to the depositor. Fourth, concerning the issue of the public notice of deposit bonds, there was little change in the amendment. However, concerning the issue of offset, it could be understood that the offset expectations of financial institutions, that is in judging whether they are in good faith or without fault, should be assessed differently in contrast to a laymen’s offset expectation, as the former are financial experts. Therefore, it can be concluded that when a trustee opens a bank account in his/her own name to manage trust property, in order for financial institutions to assert and prove that they are in good faith and without fault on the matter that this account is not a trust account, the standard of care should be raised so that financial institutions are obliged to inquire the depositor whether the contents are of trust property. Fifth, according to the current and the revised draft of the Trust Act, when it is notified to the financial institution that the account is indeed a trust account,the matter of whether it can be acknowledged as a savings account trust is negative, unlike the United States. However, under the revised draft of the Trust Act, it can be said that this serves as a similar function as a Will substitutes trust.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김재형, "금융거래의 당사자에 관한 판단기준", 저스티스, (93), pp.5~35 (2006), 한국법학원
- 김진우, "신탁재산의 특수성", 법조, (533) (2002)
- 법무부, "신탁법 개정 특별분과위원회 회의록 Ⅰ, Ⅱ", ~ (2010)
- 법무부, "신탁법 개정안 해설", ~ (2010)
- 안성포, "신탁법의 개정방향 -법무부 2009년 신탁법 전면개정안을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.193~235 (2010), 법학연구소
- 안성포, "신탁제도의 발전을 위한 입법과제 - 집단신탁을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 14(3), pp.1011~1040 (2007), 한국비교사법학회
- 안성포, "유동화에 따른 신탁재산의 독자성에 관한 소고", 증권법연구, 7(2), pp.281~309 (2006), 한국증권법학회
- 오시정, "여신실무법률(하)-회수편(제5판)" (2007), 한국금융연수원
- 오영준, "가. 신탁법 제20조의 규정 취지 및 신탁재산 독립의 원칙의 의미 나. 수탁자 개인이 수익자에 대하여 갖는 고유의 채권을 자동채권으로 하여 수익자가 신탁종료시 수탁자에 대하여 갖는 원본반환채권 내지 수익채권 등과 상계하는 것이 허용되는지 여부", 대법원판례해설, (72) (2008)
- 이중기, "신탁법" (2007), 삼우사
- 李重基, "信託을 定義하는 방법과 信託成立에 관한 제문제", 민사판례연구, 30(30), pp.807~850 (2008), 민사판례연구회
- 임채웅, "黙示信託과 擬制信託의 硏究 (평석대상 판결 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2000다17070 판결)", 저스티스, (105), pp.277~302 (2008), 한국법학원
- 임채웅, "신탁과 상계의 연구, in : 신탁법 연구" (2009), 박영사
- 임채웅, "信託行爲의 硏究", 저스티스, (99), pp.92~116 (2007), 한국법학원
- 정순섭, "社債元利金 支給代行契約의 法的 性質論", 증권법연구, 5(1), pp.317~350 (2004), 한국증권법학회
- 최동식, "신탁법" (2006), 법문사
- 崔秀貞, "신탁법상의 상계", 중앙법학, 9(4), pp.119~147 (2007), 중앙법학회
- 최수정, "일본 신신탁법" (2007), 진원사
- 道垣內弘人, "信託の設定または信託の存在認定, in : 信託取引と民法 体系系" (2003), 有斐閣
- 道垣內弘人, "預かることと信託ー信託業法の適用されない信託の検討", ジュリスト, (1164) (1999)
- 道垣內弘人, "最高裁判所 平成 14年 1月 17日 第1小法廷判決, 民集 第56卷 第1号20 頁 判決評釋", 法学教室, (263) (2002)
- 森泉章編著, "イギリス信託法原理の研究ーF.W.メイトランドの所説を通じてー" (1992), 学陽書 房
- 中野正俊, "信託法判例硏究" (1988), 酒井書店
- 樋口範雄, "アメリカ信託法ノートI" (2001), 弘文堂
- 海原文雄, "イギリス信託法, in : Digest of the English Law of Trusts" (1988), 有信堂
- George G. Bogert, "cases and text on the Law of Trusts" (2008), foundation press
- J E Penner, "The Law of Trusts" (2006), Oxford
