법률행위의 취소의 효력

• 영문명: The Effect OF Cancellation of Contract
• 발행기관: 중앙대학교 법학연구원
• 저자명: 황경웅(Hwang, Kwong-Woong)
• 간행물 정보: 『법학논문집』法學論文集 第44輯 第2號, 351~378쪽, 전체 28쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2020.08.31

국문 초록

편무계약이 취소된 경우에는 손실자는 물권적 반환청구권과 부당이득반환청구권을 선택하여 행사할 수 있고, 이때 과실이나 사용이익의 반환 및 목적물의 멸실 때의 처리는 민법 제201조 내지 제203조를 적용하여 처리하면 된다. 그러나 쌍무계약이 취소된 경우에는 급부와 반대급부의 견련성으로 인하여 판례와 학설이 일치하는 견해를 보이지 못하고 있다. 이런 상황에서 쌍무계약에서의 견련성을 유지하면서 위험부담에 관한 이론을 적용하여 필자의 나름대로의 견해를 밝히면 다음과 같다. 매매계약이 취소된 경우 매도인은 매수인을 상대로 매매목적물의 소유권에 기하여 반환청구권을 행사할 수도 있고, 채권적 청구권인 부당이득반환청구권을 행사할 수도 있다. 매수인은 채권적 청구권인 매매대금의 반환청구권만을 행사할 수 있다. 과실과 사용이익과 관련하여서는, 매수인은 매매대금과 매매대금의 사용이익인 대금 지급일로부터 이자를 청구할 수 있고, 매도인은 매매목적물의 반환과 인도일로부터 반환일까지의 사용이익의 반환을 청구할 수 있다. 목적물의 멸실의 경우, 그 멸실이 매수인에게 귀책사유가 있거나 매수인과 매도인 어느 쪽에게도 귀책사유가 없는 때에는 매수인은 목적물의 반환의무는 소멸하지만 그에 갈음하는 가액반환의무를 부담하고(그 반면으로 매도인은 목적물에 갈음하는 가액반환을 청구할 수 있다) 반대급부인 매매대금의 반환을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 그 멸실이 매도인의 귀책사유로 인한 때에는 매수인은 목적물의 반환의무와 그 갈음하는 반환의무는 소멸하고(그 반면으로 매도인은 목적물에 갈음하는 가액반환을 청구할 수 없다) 그 반대급부인 매매대금의 반환을 청구할 수 있다.

영문 초록

In the International Economic Law, national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment are the main principles of non-discrimination. In the International Investment Agreement(IAA), national treatment provisions are stipulated without exception. Among the mandatory provisions of the IIA, the most widely prescribed form of provision is the National Treatment clause. In the early stages of the IIA, the national treatment clause was briefly defined, but as it has been defined differently as it went through different eras. At the beginning of the IIA, national treatment was defined in one article, such as most favored nation and Fair & Equitable Treatment. This was all based on the principle of the Non-Discrimination principle. However, in recent years, the IIA has evolved to alone type national treatment clause in which IIA defines the content of national treatment independently. The term of the national treatment clearly defines the object of application as “establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.” National treatment provisions that include “established” and “acquired” are pre-entry protected national treatment provisions. As the substantive requirements of national treatment, three substantive requirements were established: ① comparison of “the homogenious situation” between investors and investors in host countries ② existence of discriminatory treatment ③ legitimacy of the purpose of discrimination treatment. And in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arbitration jedgement, this requirement is strictly followed and there has been no disagreement. What has been recently discussed in homogeneous situations is the “legal requirements” of like circumstance between the objects of comparisons. In other words, it was established as the main requirement that the same legal system should be applied to peers in like circumstance. In the ISDS arbitration judgement, the citation of WTO/GATT s national treatment law has been denied. However, it is positive about the application of general exception clauses for common good such as public health and environmental protection just like the Article 20 of the GATT. That is because the IIA does not have the same grounds as the general exception. Looking at the precedents of ISDS arbitration, arbitration applicants often claim violations of the F&ET provisions at the same time as violations of national treatment. This is because the law of discrimination overlaps. In fact, national treatment is interpreted very flexibly in terms of the economic sovereignty of the host country, so there are few precedents judged as violations. On the contrary, various discrimination problems arising from the policy implementation process constitute F&ET violations. What matters in relation to the National Treaty is the fact that there are cases of de facto or disguised discrimination although it looks indiscriminate superficially in the policy enforcement of the host country. The restriction on foreign investment due to national security reasons is an example. Since this is limited to domestic law, in theory, it is more likely to be treated as a violation of national treatment. In addition, in ISDS arbitration is negative about the citation of the WTO law. However, there is no governing law in the case of a claim for violation of national treatment in areas such as intellectual property rights. In some cases, ISDS arbitration and WTO Dispute Settlement System were conducted simultaneously. Therefore, the contention between ISDS and WTO/DSB is a remaining issue.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 쌍무계약의 경우

Ⅲ. 편무계약의 경우

Ⅳ. 결론

키워드

쌍무계약 편무계약 반대급부 위험부담 동시이행 견련성 Bilateral contract Unilateral contract Risk of counter benefit Simultaneous execution Tenacuty