초록 열기/닫기 버튼
대상판결들은 물상대위와 상계에 관한 대법원의 일반적인 입장을 가늠해볼 수있는 판례들로 중요하다. 두 판결의 입장을 종합하면 담보권자가 물상대위를 하는경우 물상대위의 대상이 된 금전의 지급의무자는 담보설정자에 대하여 – 물상대위의 요건으로서 압류가 아닌 – 담보설정 전 취득한 별도의 금전채권으로, 그것이 자신의 지급의무와 동시 또는 그보다 먼저 변제기가 도래하는 경우에 한하여, 상계할수 있다는 취지로 요약될 수 있다. 그리고 이러한 입장은 물상대위에 관한 특정성보전설에 충실한 것으로, 이 문제가 주로 논의되어온 저당권에 터 잡은 물상대위에관한 한 타당하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 대상판결들에서 문제된 사안은 동산 양도담보권에 터 잡은 물상대위와 존속기간 만료 후 전세권저당권에 터 잡은 물상대위였다. 전자의 경우 동산 물권법상 공시가 불완전하다는 점에 비추어볼 때 위 논리의, 나아가 특정성보전설 자체의 타당성이 의문시된다. 후자의 경우 전세권 자체가물권이어서 그 존속기간 중에는 전세금반환청구권도 용익물권으로서 전세권의 운명에 따를 수밖에 없다는 점을 고려할 필요가 있다.
The Korean Civil Code prescribes that a pledger or a mortgagor has a right of real subrogation upon the substitute of the collateral when his or her pledge or mortgage extinguishes because of taking or demolition, but he or she has to attach upon the substitute before it is paid or delivered to others. Suppose a creditor has a mortgage on a building of the debtor, and the debtor has an insurance policy for the building, and the building was lost because of fire, for example, then the creditor-mortgagor can attach the insurance proceeds and secure the priority of the debtor. The problem is whether the insurer, the third party payor, can set-off it’s claim against it’s duty to pay the subrogating creditor-mortgagor the insurance proceeds if it has an independent claim against the debtor-insured. In two recent cases, the Korean Supreme Court had the opportunities to announce its understanding on this issue. The rule rendered in those decisions can be summarized that the third party payor cannot set-off his or her claim against his or her debt when he or she acquired the claim after the pledge or the mortgage was perfected or when the due date of the claim is later than that of the debt. In this article, I demonstrate that this rule is agreeable in case of the mortgage of an immovable, the most importance instance in practice as well as the instance most arguments in literature implicitly presuppose, while it is not agreeable in case of the mortgage on a movable, the pledge, or Chônsekwon (a registered proprietary lease with a deposit secured by the object of the lease itself), which are the cases before the court in those decisions. For the third party payor’s expectation or reliance of the possibility of setoff in these cases is not worth protection, because it is not expected for the third party payor to search the existence of pledge or mortgage in case of movables when he or she perfects the pledge or mortgage and because the deposit of Chônsekwon cannot be disposed, especially set-off, before the lease period of Chônsekwon expires.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
real subrogation, set-off, mortgage on movable, Chônsekwon
