Earticle

In rem (power about or against “the thing”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a status against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in rem assumes that the property or status is the primary object of the action, rather than personal liabilities not necessarily associated with the property (quasi in rem jurisdiction). Within the U.S. federal court system, jurisdiction in rem typically refers to the power a federal court may exercise over large items of immoveable property, or real property, located within the court’s jurisdiction. The most frequent circumstance in which this occurs in the Anglo-American legal system is when a suit is brought in admiralty law against a vessel to satisfy debts arising from the operation or use of the vessel. Within the American state court systems, jurisdiction in rem may refer to the power the state court may exercise over real property or personal property or a person’s marital status. State courts have the power to determine legal ownership of any real or personal property within the state’s boundaries. A right in rem or a judgment in rem binds the world as opposed to rights and judgments inter partes which only bind those involved in their creation. Originally, the notion of in rem jurisdiction arose in situations in which property was identified but the owner was unknown. This style is awkward because in law, only a person may be a party to a judicial proceeding?hence the more common in personam style?and a non-person would at least have to have a guardian appointed to represent its interests, or the interests of the unknown owner. The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is troublesome because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees than the amount of money forfeited while collecting the money.

소유물반환의무(민법 제213조)를 부담하는 권원없는 점유자가 타인 소유물에 비용을 지출한 경우의 비용상환에 대해서 우리민법 제203조는 이득과 손실의 불균형상태를 시정하는 역할을 담당하고 있다. 이러한 제203조의 법적성격에 대해서 일반적 견해는 동조의 비용상환청구권이 부당이득반환청구권의 성질을 가진다고 한다. 그러면서 제203조를 점유자 ․ 회복자라는 2자 간에 소유물반환관계가 전제된 상태의 비용상환문제를 해결하기 위한 규정으로 이해한다. 그런데 도급계약에 기하여 수급인이 도급인으로부터 제3자 소유의 물건을 이전받아 수리한 결과 그 물건의 가치가 증가한 경우, 도급인 이외에 수급인도 제3자에게 동조에 의한 비용상환청구권을 행사할 수 있는 비용지출자에 해당하는지가 2002년 대법원 판례를 통하여 문제되었다. 이 문제에 대해서 대법원은 수급인의 제3자에 대한 부당이득반환청구권(이른바 전용물소권)을 부정하는 설시와 함께 도급인만이 소유자에 대한 관계에서 민법 제203조에 의한 비용상환청구권을 행사할 수 있는 비용지출자라고 판단하였고, 학자들도 대부분 이를 지지하였다. 그러나 제203조의 근저에 부당이득법의 일반원리가 내재되어 있다면, 점유자 ․ 회복자라는 2자간의 관계 뿐만 아니라 이들 사이에 중간자(도급인)가 개재된 3자간의 관계에서도 이러한 원리는 관철되어야 할 것이며, 손실을 입은 점유자를 구제하기 위해서라도 점유자인 수급인에게 제203조의 비용상환청구권이라는 독자적 구제수단이 필요하다고 여겨진다. 그럼에도 이와 같은 일반원리를 도외시한 채 판례와 학설은 점유자에게 소유자에 대한 제741조의 부당이득반환청구 뿐만 아니라 제203조의 비용상환청구도 부정하고 있다. 이를 통하여 본 논문이 다루고자 하는 3자간의 비용지출이 문제되는 사안에서 부당이득법의 일반원리를 구현하기 위하여 제203조가 우리민법 하에서 어떠한 모습으로 작용하여야 하는지, 또한 제741조의 부당이득반환청구(전용물소권)와 어떠한 관계에 있는지에 대한 의문이 생기지 않을 수 없었다. 이에 대해서 연혁적 ․ 비교법적 고찰을 기초로 제203조의 존재의의를 탐색하면, 우리민법 하에서 제203조의 비용상환청구권은 독자적 지위를 인정할 수 있다. 이는 특히 3자간의 비용지출이 문제되는 사안에서 의미가 있다고 여겨질 뿐만 아니라, 궁극적으로는 부당이득법의 취지에도 부합한다. 따라서 이 경우 점유자인 수급인에게 소유자에 대한 제203조의 비용상환청구권의 행사를 독자적으로 인정하여야 할 것이며, 이와 다른 결론을 내린 판례 및 다수 학설의 태도는 재고되어야 할 것이다.

Possessor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses and “actio de in rem verso” have each developed into separate systems since the Roman law. Incidentally, a problem concerning how to understand bilateral relations when payment of expenses in third-party relationships became problematic with historic and social changes (e.g. time and place changes, etc.) has arisen. As for each nation's legislation cases related to the problem, bilateral relations have not been explained directly and only the arraignment of both sides has been handled according to each legislative environment. Of course, our Civil Code, which has adopted various nations' Civil Codes or has been enacted based on them, has generally followed the tendency; but some areas that require independent judgements under our Civil Code have also been created. One of them is the problem concerning establishment of the relationship between possessor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses and possessor's “actio de in rem verso”. Then what should be the right understanding of bilateral relations? In general, the relationship where one of the sides claims the return of the article owned and the other side returns it should be the prerequisite for possessor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses and the right is the substantial right of “actio de in rem verso” with the nature of unjust enrichment. However, in terms of both history and legal analysis it should be right to see that our Civil Code Article 203 was recognized through the independent general rule reflecting the legislator's decision about interest adjustment between a possessor and retriever. Therefore, the right to demand reimbursement of expenses in Article 203 is neither annexed to the right to demand reimbursement of expenses and nor subordinate to the right of claiming general restitution of unjust enrichment in Article 213. In addition, in compliance with the intent of the unjust enrichment law it seems to be more appropriate to acknowledge possessor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses in the relationship between a contractor and owner, which is for the sake of substantive equity. Finally, it is considered that regarding possessor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses as the substantial right of “actio de in rem verso”, which is considered as the same as the right of claiming restitution of unjust enrichment in discussion, is sufficient; and it is unnecessary to deny the independent status of the right itself. As for an issue that needs substantial balancing of interest, as in the question this piece of writing is raising, it is possible to be able to conclude that possessor's (loser) right to demand reimbursement of expenses could be recognized as the basic of an independent right of claiming (independent from owner's (beneficiary) right of claiming restitution of unjust enrichment). The exploration of the issue of payment of expenses in third-party relationships raised by the precedent of 2002 based on this perception revealed no logical necessity of having to deny contractor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses despite denial of “actio de in rem verso”. However, in this issue it is thought to be better to recognize contractor's right to demand reimbursement of expenses - independent right - and the precedents and many theories that have drawn different conclusions should be reconsidered.