Earticle

초록

영어

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.

한국어

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.

목차

Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 전용물소권을 부정한 2002년 판결 분석
1. 2002년 판결 내용
2. 그 후의 동일취지 판결
3. 판결의 의미와 학설의 입장
III. 전용물소권의 본질에 따른 부정설과 판결이유에 대한 재검토
1. 로마법상 계약급부소권으로서의 전용물소권
2. 보통법과 근대법상 부당이득반환청구권으로서의 전용물소권
3. 계약법원리와 전용물소권의 관련성 검토
IV. 우리민법에서 전용물소권의 인정 가능성
1. 민법규정의 간접적 근거
2. 우리 판례를 통해서 본 인정 가능성
V. 결어
< 참고문헌 >
[Abstract]

키워드

전용물소권 준전용물소권 형평 부당이득반환소권 목적부도달의 부당이득반환소권 무원인의 부당이득반환소권 주석학파 판 덱텐의 현대적 관용 로마법의 계수 채무법현대화 계약의 연쇄 직접소권 계약의 상대적 효력 actio de in rem verso condictio sine causa usus modernus pandektarum Rezeption der römischen Rechts chaînes de contrats action directe la relativité du contrat

저자

• 정상현 [ Jung, Sang-Hyun | 성균관대학교 법학전문대학원 교수⋅법학박사 ] 교신저자
• 박석일 [ Park, Seok-Il | 성균관대학교 법학전문대학원 BK사업단 연구원⋅법학연구소 연구원 ] 주저자

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물