earticle

영어

Article 43(1) of the Korean Trust Act, enacted in 2012, states: "Where a trustee has violated his duties incurring any loss to the trust property, the settlor, beneficiary, or other trustees where a number of trustees exist, may request the relevant trustee to restore, reinstate the trust property: Provided, that where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to reinstate the trust property, or excessive expenses are incurred in such reinstatement, or where any special ground exists making reinstatement inappropriate, a claim for damages may be raised."Furthermore, article 43(3) of the Korean Trust Act states that "where a trustee is in breach of a duty of loyalty stipulated in Articles 33 through 37, he should disgorge all the profits acquired by himself or a third party to the trust property, even if no loss has incurred to the trust property." The disgorgement remedy set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty. Yet, this powerful gain-based remedy has not been applied by courts in South Korea. Thus, it is difficult to understand a clear rule for determining disgorgement of profits case. Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. "Unjust enrichment" and "management of another's affairs(negotiorum gestio)" were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. The purpose of this dissertation is to clarify the nature and function of a trustee's fiduciary duty and the disgorgement of profits under Article 43(3) by analyzing the origin and concept of disgorgement of profits and accounts of profits remedies. The vitally important duty of loyalty is not self-enforcing, and when a breach occurs, the remedy should be in conformity with the duty. The philosophical grounds for disgorgement of profits, the corrective justice are tenuous. The rationale for disgorgement of profits is to deter a breach of the duty of loyalty. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits. The quantification of illegally gained profits must reflect the nuances of the fiduciary relationship and the manner in which the duty was breached; the uneasy interplay between causation, remoteness and allowances must be considered. In ordering a disgorgement of profits, a court should factor in the fiduciary's skill and effort in determining the amount of the profits that should be disgorged. Disgorgement of profits is a harsh remedy, and its effectiveness as a deterrent depends on its proportionality to the wrongs. This paper also examines whether it is plausible to apply the disgorgement of profits remedy to a corporation's board of directors. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, a director of a corporation is categorically treated as a status-based fiduciary who owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation. If unauthorized profits are made by a director in breach of his fiduciary duty to the corporation, the director should be required to disgorge the profits just as a disloyal trustee is required to disgorge profits under the Trust Act in South Korea.

한국어

본 논문은 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이득토출책임의 성격을 파악하고 그 반환범위 를 획정하기 위해 그 연원인 영미법의 이득토출책임을 살펴보았다. 이는 향후 신탁 법 제43조 제3항에 관한 해석상 지침을 마련하기 위함이다. 2012년 신탁법 전면개 정 시 제43조 제3항에서 이득토출책임을 도입하였지만, 아직 해당 조항이 적극적으 로 활용된 바가 없다. 즉 신탁법에서 이득토출책임을 표면적으로 도입하였지만, 토 출할 이익의 구체적인 범위나 법적 성격에 대한 논의는 여전히 부족한 실정이다. 따라서 본 논문에서 영미법상 이득토출책임의 연원 및 그 개념을 검토하여 향후 신 탁법상 이득토출책임 적용에 길잡이를 마련하고자 한다. 특히 본 논문은 영미법상 이득토출책임의 개념에 사용하는 Disgorgement와 Account of profits 용어의 연원에 초점을 두고 살펴보았으며, 이득토출책임의 근거 를 검토하고, 이득토출책임과 관련된 법경제학적인 논의를 살펴보았다. 또한 영미 법상 이득토출책임의 법적 성격(물권적 혹은 채권적 성격)에 대한 학계의 견해를 살 펴보고, 이득토출책임과 구별되는 개념 및 이득토출책임의 적용범위를 검토하였다. 영국과 미국에서 이득토출책임을 구제수단으로 하는 수탁자의 의무의 범위가 상이 하지만, 본 논문은 충실의무 및 하부 룰(sub-rules) 위반에만 이득토출책임을 부과하 는 것이 보다 타당하다고 생각한다. 또한 영미법에서는 이득토출책임을 부과할 신 인의무자의 범주를 명확하게 하고 있지 않지만, 본 논문은 재산에 대한 법적 소유 권자 및 이에 준하는 재량 및 권한을 행사하는 신인의무자로 한정하여야 한다고 생 각한다. 영미법상 이득토출책임은 억지와 예방의 목적을 달성하기 위해 엄격한 이득토출 책임, 즉 충실의무 위반으로부터 신인의무자인 수탁자가 취득한 모든 이득을 토출 하는 것을 원칙으로 한다. 하지만 구체적인 판례를 검토해보면. 이득토출책임 금액 은 개별 사실관계에 크게 의존하고 있으며 수탁자에게 가혹한 책임이 되는 것을 방 지하기 위하여 인과관계, 공제 등을 적용하여 그 엄격성을 일부 완화하고 있음을 확인할 수 있다.