초록 열기/닫기 버튼
우리 민법은 2개의, 일본 민법은 3개의 채권자취소권 관련 조항을 두고 있고, 두 나라 모두 채권자취소권과 관련 법률문제를 학설과 판례에 유보하고 있었는데, 규정의 유사성으로 인해 학설과 판례 역시 유사한 방향으로 발전되어 왔다. 최근 양국 모두 민법개정안을 발표함으로써 채권자취소권에 관한 구체적 입법을 시도하고 있는데 각 개정안에서, 일본은 상대적 무효설을 폐지하고 있는데 우리는 상대적 무효설을 유지하면서 채권자평등주의와의 공존을 모색하고 있다는 점, 일본은 사해행위취소의 행위유형을 구체화하였으나 우리는 그러하지 않다는 점 등에서 차이가 있다. 상대적 무효설과 채권자평등주의의 논리적 모순은 부인할 수 없다는 점, 채권자취소제도와 도산법상 부인권의 정합성을 기할 필요가 있다는 점에서 일본 민법개정안의 취지를 받아들일 필요가 있다. 우리 민법개정안은 수익자 악의요건 입증책임, 상계금지기간의 설정, 가액반환 범위 등에 관한 규정을 새로이 두어 채권자, 채무자, 수익자의 이익을 조화롭게 보호하기 위한 태도를 취하고 있다는 점에서 긍정적이라고 평가된다. 장기적으로는 독일, 미국과 같이 채권자취소제도에 관한 실체법, 절차법적인 요소를 모두 규율하는 독립 법률 제정이 타당하다고 생각한다.
Regarding the creditor’s right to revoke the debtor’s fraudulent transfer, the Korean Civil Code(the“KCC”) has only two provisions and the Japanese Civil Code(the“JCC”) has only three provisions, both of which have resulted in much room for interpretation of the creditor’s right by academic theories and court decisions. Due to the similarities of the provisions in the Civil Codes of Korea and Japan, the interpretation of the creditor’s right has also developed in a very similar way in both countries. Recently the final draft amendments of the Civil Codes were announced in Korea and Japan, in which the changes on the creditor’s right to revoke are the most prominent part. Both of the draft amendments reflect detailed legal doctrines regarding fraudulent transfer, which have been developed by the courts and the legal academia in each country. There are a few major differences between the draft amendments of the two Codes. First, with regard to the validity of the creditor’s right to revoke, both of the Korean Supreme Court and the Japanese Supreme Court have adopted for a long time the theory of relative void. In the draft amendment of the JCC, any fraudulent transfer among the creditor, the debtor, the transferee or the second transferee is void, and such amendment is recognized as giving up the theory of relative void. On the other hand, the draft amendment of the KCC adopts the theory of relative void, but still adopts the theory of creditor-equalitarianism as well. This attitude of the draft amendment of the KCC has been criticized by many scholars due to the logical contradiction between the two theories. Second, the draft amendment of the JCC classifies the types of fraudulent transfer and separate provisions regulate different categories of fraudulent transfer. However, the draft amendment of the KCC does not classify the types of fraudulent transfer. It seems that the draft amendment of the JCC is more consistent with the Bankruptcy Code of Japan than the draft amendment draft of the KCC with the Bankruptcy Code of Korea. Third, the draft amendment of KCC seeks to balance the interests among the creditor, the debtor and the transferee compared to the draft amendment of JCC, based on the following contents: (i) to place the burden of proof as to the intention of a transferee on a creditor, not on a transferee; (ii) to prohibit setting-off for a certain period of time by the creditor applying to the court the revocation of the fraudulent transfer; and (iii) to follow Article 748(Amount of Benefits to be Returned by Person Enriched) of the KCC in determining the amount of compensation. This paper suggests that, in order to remove the logical contradiction between the theories of relative void and the creditor-equalitarianism, and to make the KCC consistent with the Bankruptcy Law of Korea, a few of the rules on the draft amendment the JCC should be adopted in the draft amendment of the KCC. It would be more desirable if Korea, as if the U.S. and Germany, has a separate legal framework for fraudulent transfer regulating all the substantive and procedural aspects.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
fraudulent transfer, draft amendment of the Korean Civil Code, draft amendment of the Japanese Civil Code, creditor’s right to revoke, consistency with the Bankruptcy Law
