간접점유 동산에 대한 양도담보―창고업자 임치물의 인도방식을 중심으로― (Title Transfer by Way of Security (Yang-Do-Dam-Bo) over Tangible Goods under Indirect Possession – On Delivery of Tangible Goods under the Custody of Warehouses –)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국증권법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 증권법연구 / 23권 / 3호 / 321 ~ 351페이지
· 저자명 : 양선영

초록

동산을 담보로 자금을 조달하는 방식은 이중양도 혹은 이중담보제공의 위험으로 인하여 크게 활성화되어 있지 않다.
상품․원료 등 재고자산이나, 외국으로부터 수입한 물건과 같이 제3자(창고업자 혹은 운송인)가 직접점유하고 있는 동산을 소유자(간접점유자)가 담보로 제공하는 방식은 민법상 목적물반환청구권의 양도에 의하여야 한다.
그럼에도 불구하고 대법원 판결 중에는 간접점유를 점유개정으로 이전할 수 있다는 취지의 판결이 발견되고, 실무에서는 ‘화주이체’라는 방식까지 광범위하게 사용되고 있어서, 간접점유물을 담보로 제공하는 권리관계는 여러 요소를 고려하여야 한다.
따라서 이 논문은 점유매개관계의 대표적인 형식인 ‘창고계약’을 전제로, 창고업자가 보관 중인 임치물에 담보를 설정하는 방식을 살펴보고자 하며, 이는 점유개정과 목적물반환청구권의 양도가 허용되는 범위에 관한 검토로 이어진다. 이 논문에서는 동산양도담보의 우선순위에 관하여, 작성자가 실무에서 담당하였던 사안을 바탕으로 미력하나마 일정한 기준을 제시하고자 한다.
결론적으로는 첫째, 민법의 체계와 맞지 않고, 외부에서는 파악할 수도 없기 때문에 이중양도의 위험이 있고 거래안전을 위협하는 ‘간접점유에 대한 점유개정’은 인정하지 말아야 한다고 보며, 둘째, 현실적으로는 새로운 대법원 판결의 선고나 명확한 입법이 이루어지기 전까지는 양수인은 목적물반환청구권의 양도와 간접점유의 점유개정을 함께 이용하는 편이 안전하다고 하겠다.

영어초록

In Korea, financing of funds using personal property as security has not enjoyed much commercial usage due to risks of a double transfer or a double provision of security. Where an owner (being an indirect holder) of certain goods (such as inventories (products or raw materials) or imported goods) intends to grant security over such goods that are held by another party (such as warehouse owner/ carrier) (being a direct holder), such grant of security will necessarily have to be in the form of a “transfer of the right to return of the subject goods” (mok-jeok-mool-ban-hwan-cheong-goo-gwon in Korean) under the Korean Civil Code. Nevertheless, when examining the issue of how goods (which are indirectly held by the owner thereof) may be granted as security, there exist numerous factors to consider, especially given the lack of clarity on point, as highlighted by a conflicting court decision by the Supreme Court of Korea (which provides that goods held in indirect possession (gan-jeop-jeom-yoo in Korean) may be transferred via “agreement on possession” (jeom-yoo-gae-jeong in Korean) and also, by the frequency of a practical method often referred to as a “Transfer of the titleholder of goods” (hwa-joo-ee-chae in Korean) (which refers to the procedures for changing the titleholder of goods vis-à-vis a warehouse owner). With the above in mind, this paper seeks to examine the methods of creating a security over bailed goods (im-chi-mool in Korean) held by a warehouse owner in the context of a warehouse agreement (chang-go-gae-yak in Korean) (it being a representative case of a legal relationship (jeom-yoo-mae-gae-gwan-gae in Korean) that governs the rights among an indirect holder of goods (gan-jeop-jeom-yoo-ja in Korean) and a direct holder of goods (jik-jeop-jeom-yoo-ja in Korean)). Such examination will necessarily extend to ascertaining the extent to which “agreement on possession” and “transfer of the right to return of the subject goods” may be resorted to. The author hopes to contribute to the existing literature by proposing certain standards/guidelines that are drawn from the author’s practical experience of working on a court case that involved determining the priority of rights vis-à-vis security over personal property. In conclusion, firstly, agreement on possession by way of indirect possession should not be recognized as an appropriate legal means as it does not fit well into the current construct of the Korean Civil Code nor there is a proper way to put other third parties on notice which may lead to risks of double transfer thereby threatening the certainty and finality of a given transaction and secondly, as a matter of practice, it would be prudent for an assignee to resort to both means of the transfer of the right to return of the subject goods and agreement on possession by way of indirect possession until such time we have a court decision on point overturning the precedent and/or the relevant laws and regulations are further developed and clarified.

참고자료

· 없음