신탁재산의 변화에 따른 투자법(investment law)의 등장과 수탁자의 주의의무, 충실의무 법리의 분화와 발전
Development of Trust Investment Law and Trustees' Duty of Care In Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Historically the trust was a 'conveyancing' device for real estates designed to avoid rigidities of intestacy and the tax burdens. But in late 19th century when financial markets started to produce new investment products, the trust underwent radical transformation. As the portfolio of financial assets displaced family land as a dominant form of trust property, the trust has become a 'management' vehicle for holding such assets, and the nature of the trusteeship radically changed. The trustee was now required to perform 'active manager' role rather than 'passive custodian' role. The equity courts in UK and many states in US developed a series of trust investment law, reflecting the enhanced management discretion on the trusteeship. Korean Trust Act has also adopted similar stance as to investment law to Anglo-American style and equipped the Korean trustees with similar powers and duties. This article investigates among other things whether the standard of care on the Korean trusteeship should be that imposed upon a mandatee or that upon a voluntary bailee. It is argued here that the standard of care upon a trusteeship should be flexible enough to cover both bailee standard and mandatee standard. In investigating the standard issue, following issues are also researched: (i) the influence of the new financial products and the enhanced management powers on the trusteeship, and (ii) the separate development of trust investment law and fiduciary law that is triggered by the enhanced management powers. It is also argued here that although the Korean investment law is in a developing stage such as that of 'legal list', it is possible for investors to impose 'prudent investor' standard upon the Korean trustees by inserting such terms in a trust contract. On the other hand, it is argued in this article, that Korean fiduciary law is well developed to cover conflict of interest issues and expressly stipulated in the Korean Trust Act.
Abstract
Historically the trust was a 'conveyancing' device for real estates designed to avoid rigidities of intestacy and the tax burdens. But in late 19th century when financial markets started to produce new investment products, the trust underwent radical transformation. As the portfolio of financial assets displaced family land as a dominant form of trust property, the trust has become a 'management' vehicle for holding such assets, and the nature of the trusteeship radically changed. The trustee was now required to perform 'active manager' role rather than 'passive custodian' role. The equity courts in UK and many states in US developed a series of trust investment law, reflecting the enhanced management discretion on the trusteeship. Korean Trust Act has also adopted similar stance as to investment law to Anglo-American style and equipped the Korean trustees with similar powers and duties. This article investigates among other things whether the standard of care on the Korean trusteeship should be that imposed upon a mandatee or that upon a voluntary bailee. It is argued here that the standard of care upon a trusteeship should be flexible enough to cover both bailee standard and mandatee standard. In investigating the standard issue, following issues are also researched: (i) the influence of the new financial products and the enhanced management powers on the trusteeship, and (ii) the separate development of trust investment law and fiduciary law that is triggered by the enhanced management powers. It is also argued here that although the Korean investment law is in a developing stage such as that of 'legal list', it is possible for investors to impose 'prudent investor' standard upon the Korean trustees by inserting such terms in a trust contract. On the other hand, it is argued in this article, that Korean fiduciary law is well developed to cover conflict of interest issues and expressly stipulated in the Korean Trust Act.
참고문헌 (39)
- 송옥렬, "상법강의 제5판" (2015), 서울
- 이중기, "신탁법" (2007)
- 이재홍, "민법주해 (XV) 채권 (8)" (1997)
- 최동식, "신탁법" (2006)
- 가정준, "신탁재산에 대한 수탁자와 수익자의 권리 -DCFR 신탁법상을 중심으로-", 외법논집, 37(3), pp.149~168 (2013), 법학연구소
- 권영준, "불법행위의 과실 판단과 사회평균인", 비교사법, 22(1), pp.91~132 (2015), 한국비교사법학회
- 권재열, "모회사의 이사에 대한 자회사의 실권주 배정에 관련된 몇 가지 쟁점의 검토 - 대법원 2013.9.12. 선고 2011다57869 판결을 대상으로 하여 -", 선진상사법률연구, (65), pp.12~46 (2014), 법무부
- 권재열, "상법 제382조의 3(이사의 충실의무)의 존재의의 ―대법원 판례의 동향에 대한 검토를 중심으로―", 상사판례연구, 22(1), pp.3~35 (2009), 한국상사판례학회
- 김현경, "상법상 이사의 충실의무에 관한 고찰", 중앙법학, 14(1), pp.147~172 (2012), 중앙법학회
- 문형배, "토지신탁상 수탁자의 손해배상의무와 보상청구권", 판례연구, 19, pp.155~ (2008), 부산판례연구회
- 박기령, "이사의 선관의무와 충실의무의 법사학적 기원에 관한 고찰", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.477~506 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 박삼철, "‘제도’로서의 투자신탁의 기본구조와 발전전략", 홍익법학, 15(1), pp.533~573 (2014), 법학연구소
- 안성포, "신탁법상 수탁자의 충실의무에 관한 고찰 - 2009년 법무부 개정안을 중심으로 -", 상사판례연구, 22(4), pp.83~120 (2009), 한국상사판례학회
- 안성포, "신탁법의 쟁점 (제2권)", pp.404~ (2015)
- 윤태영, "신탁수탁자의 선관주의의무", 비교사법, 22(2), pp.527~562 (2015), 한국비교사법학회
- 이연갑, "위임과 신탁: 수임인과 수탁자의 의무를 중심으로", 비교사법, 22(1), pp.23~50 (2015), 한국비교사법학회
- 이중기, "신탁법에 기초한 영미 충실의무법리의 계수와 발전: 회사법, 금융법의 충실의무를 중심으로", 홍익법학, 12(1), pp.29~82 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이중기, "신탁에서의 이익향유금지의 원칙과 이익반환책임:상법상 개입권의 행사가능성을 중심으로", 홍익법학, 8(2), pp.195~229 (2007), 법학연구소
- 이중기, "이익충돌의 판정기준과 ‘법인격’의 고려여부, 회사기회 유용법리와 회사법상 충실의무법리의 전개", 민사판례연구, (37), pp.595~634 (2015), 민사판례연구회
- 이중기, "투자신탁제도의 신탁적 요소와 조직계약적 요소", 한림법학 FORUM, 9, pp.59~ (2000)
- 이중기, "신의칙과 위임법리에의 접목을 통한 충실의무법리의 확대와 발전 : 신뢰와 신임에 관한 법원칙의 사법상의 지위와 발전방향을 중심으로", 홍익법학, 12(2), pp.309~339 (2011), 법학연구소
- 이중기, "법무법인에 발생하는 이익충돌과 충실의무 : ‘준수탁자’로서의 법무법인", 홍익법학, 14(4), pp.457~509 (2013), 법학연구소
- 이철송, "善管注意義務와 忠實義務에 관한 이론의 발전과 전망", 비교사법, 22(1), pp.1~22 (2015), 한국비교사법학회
- 장근영, "영미법상 신인의무 법리와 이사의 지위", 비교사법, 15(1), pp.269~302 (2008), 한국비교사법학회
- 천경훈, "신세계 대표소송의 몇 가지 쟁점 – 경업, 회사기회유용, 자기거래", 상사법연구, 33(1), pp.135~175 (2014), 한국상사법학회
- 최나진, "신탁법상의 충실의무에 대한 소고 - 2011년 개정 신탁법을 중심으로 -", 법학연구, 16(1), pp.53~86 (2013), 법학연구소
- 최문희, "失權株에 관한 法的 爭點의 檢討 - 최근의 判例를 소재로 하여", 상사법연구, 32(3), pp.103~156 (2013), 한국상사법학회
- 四宮和夫, "信託法"
- 新井誠, "信託法"
- Gower, "Principles of Modem Company Law" (2012)
- Moffat, "Trust Law" (2009)
- Virgo, "The Principles of Equity & Trusts", ~ (2012)
- "Restatement of Trusts 2d § 174", ~ (1959)
- Sin, "The Legal Nature of the Unit Trust", ~ (1997)
- Langbein, "The Contractarian Basis of the Law of Trust", Yale L.J, 105, pp.625~632 (1995)
- Langbein, "The Secret Life of the Trust: The Trust as an Instrument of Cormierce", Yale L.J, 107, pp.165~ (1997)
- Langbein, "The Uniform Prudent Investor Act and the Future of Trust Investing", Iowa L.R, 81, pp.641~643 (1996)
- Sealy, "Fiduciary Relationship", Cambridge LJ, pp.69~ (1962)
- Shattuck, "The Development of the Prudent Man Rule for Fiduciary Investment in the United States in the Twentieth century", Ohio St. L.J, 12, pp.491~499 (1951)