우리민법과 마찬가지로 일본민법도 어떤 법률행위가 무효로 되는가에 대해서는 각각 개별적으로 규정하고 있지만, 무효에 대한 일반적 통칙을 총칙의 법률행위의 장(제5장) 가운데 하나의 절(제4절 무효 및 취소)로 정리하고 있다. 이러한 입법방식은 독일민법초안에 따른 것으로 보편적인 것은 아니다. 다만 취소와는 달리 무효에는 소극적 자세로서 추인을 정한 제119조 한 개의 규정만을 두고 있을 뿐이다. 따라서 무효의 법률적 내용에 대해서는 그 대부분이 주로 외국법을 참조하면서 해석에 의해 명확하게 되어 왔다. 이러한 일본민법의 입법방식은 우리민법의 제정 과정에서 많은 영향을 미쳤다. 그러나 한편으로는 착오에 대하여 무효로 규정하고 있고, 일부무효나 무효행위의 전환에 대하여는 규정하지 않은 채 무효행위의 추인에 대하여만 규정하고 있는 등 우리민법과의 미묘한 차이도 보이고 있다. 이 부분은 우리민법 제정 당시 일본에서 규정의 불비로 학설대립을 보이던 부분을 입법적으로 해결한 것에 해당한다. 이 논문은 일본민법의 무효규정의 입법취지와 우리민법과 차이점을 크게 보이는 부분을 집중 연구함으로써 우리민법의 무효부분의 입법이유를 밝히고자 하였다. 공서양속 위반이나 강행법규 위반에 있어서의 일본의 통설은 종래 우리나라 학설의 내용과 거의 동일하다. 그러나 이러한 통설로는 해석이 곤란한 점들이 있었기 때문에 최근 다양한 관점에서 해석을 시도한 견해들이 있음이 주목되고, 이 또한 우리에게 많은 참고가 될 것으로 생각한다.

The Japanese Civil Code has many individual articles indicating what type of legal act will be invalid. It has also general provision about invalidity as the Korean Civil Code. This legislation was derived from the German Civil Code. Unlike the German Civil Code, however, the Japanese Civil Code provides only one expressive rule about ratification. Other legal rules but the ratification rule remain on courts or legal scholars’ interpretation. Indeed, Japanese current rules have been shaped by their interpretations thereafter. The Korean Civil Code mainly referred to the Japanese Civil Code during its enactment. Nevertheless, there are some subtle differences between the Korean and Japanese Civil Code: invalidity as legal effect of mistake, partial invalidation, conversion of invalidation into validation and so on. These differences allow us to infer that the enactment aimed to solve the problems that the Japanese Civil Code had at that time. This article investigates the legislative purpose of invalidity rules in Japanese Civil Code, and it also attempts to the comparative analysis between the current Korean Civil Code and the Japanese. The comparative analysis should not be limited to the previous version of Japanese legal theories. In fact, Japanese traditional perspectives on invalidity (in the case of violating public policy) has been evaluated as problematic. In response, there are new emerging perspectives on invalidity, which provides implications for polishing the Korean Civil Code.

The Japanese Civil Code has many individual articles indicating what type of legal act will be invalid. It has also general provision about invalidity as the Korean Civil Code. This legislation was derived from the German Civil Code. Unlike the German Civil Code, however, the Japanese Civil Code provides only one expressive rule about ratification. Other legal rules but the ratification rule remain on courts or legal scholars’ interpretation. Indeed, Japanese current rules have been shaped by their interpretations thereafter. The Korean Civil Code mainly referred to the Japanese Civil Code during its enactment. Nevertheless, there are some subtle differences between the Korean and Japanese Civil Code: invalidity as legal effect of mistake, partial invalidation, conversion of invalidation into validation and so on. These differences allow us to infer that the enactment aimed to solve the problems that the Japanese Civil Code had at that time. This article investigates the legislative purpose of invalidity rules in Japanese Civil Code, and it also attempts to the comparative analysis between the current Korean Civil Code and the Japanese. The comparative analysis should not be limited to the previous version of Japanese legal theories. In fact, Japanese traditional perspectives on invalidity (in the case of violating public policy) has been evaluated as problematic. In response, there are new emerging perspectives on invalidity, which provides implications for polishing the Korean Civil Code.

The Japanese Civil Code, invalidity, ratification, partial invalidation, conversion of invalidation into validation, legislative purpose, mistake, violating public policy