초록 열기/닫기 버튼
어음항변은 전통적으로 물적항변과 인적항변의두 가지로 나뉘어져 왔다. 그러나 이 양자를 구별하는 절대적 기준은 존재하지 않는다. 어음법도 이 구별의 기준을 정하고 있지 않으며, 무엇을 물적항변 사유로 할 것인가는 해석의 문제이다. 이는 어음거래의 정적안전과 동적안전을 고려해야 할 것이다. 물적항변인가 인적항변인가의구별은 절대⋅고정적인 것이 아니므로, 과거에는물적 항변 사유로 해석되었던 것이 지금에 와서는 인적항변 사유로서 다뤄지는 것들도 있다. 교부흠결의 항변 등이1) 그 예이다. 물적항변과 인적항변과의 구별의 상대성을 인정해야 하는 경우도 있고, 혹은 양성적 속성을가진 항변사유도 있다. 즉, 본질적으로는 물적 항변의 속성을 가진 것이 거래의 일반적 사회통념의 변화에 따라 어느 경우에는 인적항변으로서다뤄질 수도 있는 것이다. 예를 들면, 위조, 무권대리는 원칙적으로 물적 항변 사유이나, 피위조자나 본인이 외관이론 등에 의거하여 선의의 제삼자에 대해 책임을 면할 수 없는 사유가 있을때에는 인적항변 사유로서 다뤄지게 된다. 현행 어음법은 어음항변에 관하여 포괄적인 규정을 마련하지 않고, 어음법 제17조에서 인적항변에 관하여만 규정하고 있다. 그러나 무엇이 인적항변인가조차 구체적이고도 명확하게 정하지않고 있다.
The Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act stipulates in Article 17 that “Any person claimed on a bill of exchange shall not reject a holder’s claim with grounds for protest concerning effective but revocable note. However, where the holder has acquired the bill when he/she was aware of the fact that it would harm the debtor, the same shall not apply..” This provision applies mutatis mutandis to promissory notes (Article 77 (1) 1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and a provision with the same purpose is prescribed in Article 22 of the Check Act. It is so called “protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note” that a person claimed on a bill of exchange cannot protest against a transferee’s claim once a note is transferred to a transferee. With a reverse interpretation of this provision,it is understandable that there is another type of protest of bills that any person can protest against a transferee’s claim even if a note is transferred: it is “protest of bills concerning invalid note.”As seen in above, protest of bills are divided into “protest of bills concerning invalid note” and “protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note.” No clear and definite standard is established for distinguishing those two. Even the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act does not stipulate the standard for distinction of the two, and many theories and interpretations on the distinction standard are still conflicting. First and foremost, however, safety of a real owner of the note and safety of a trade should be considered first. As the distinguishing standard is not firmly defined, some that used to be construed as protest of bills concerning invalid note are now understood as protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note. The contents of this study are as follows:distinctive features of protest of bills;types of protestof bills concerning invalid note;types of protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note, problematic points of theories and interpretations on restriction on protest of bills concerning effective but revocable note, and protest by a person knowing that a note is invalid or revocable;protest against the rightless; and protest against a drawer or previous holder and a current holder. With these contents, this study aims to build a credible theory and interpretation by examining the related issues, cases, and other literatures.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
bill of exchange, protest of bill, protest against the rightless, current holder, protest of bills concerning invalid
