EU계약법에서의 소멸시효규정에 대한 연구
A Study on Regulations about the Prescription in EU Contract Laws
박신욱(경남대학교)
57권 2호, 111~144쪽
초록
본 논문은 2015년 12월 12일 민사법학회 동계학술회 중 EU계약법 연구회에서의 발표한 내용을 수정한 것이다. 민사법학회에 소속된 EU계약법 연구회의 2015년 연구주제가 CESL이었기 때문에, 이를 PECL 및 DCFR를 소개하고 이를 비교하고자 하였다. 이러한 병렬적 비교는 다음과 같은 의미를 찾을 수 있는데, 첫째로는 계약법 분야에서 통일법규나 각국의 입법(안)에서 공통적으로 나타나는 경향을 파악할 수 있다는 점이다. 두 번째로는 시효가 가지는 특징에 기인한다. 왜냐하면 일반적으로 시효는 법률관계의 안정, 권리행사의 불가능성 또는 신의성실의 원칙이 명문화된 것으로 이해되는데, 이러한 근거들은 논리적이기 보다는 사회의 안정을 보장하기 위한 필요성에 근거하고 있다고 여겨지기 때문이다. 이와 같이 시효제도를 논리적 결과라기보다는 단순한 필요성에 근거한 제도로 이해할 수 있다면, 또한 시효의 기간에 대한 국제적인 흐름이 존재한다는 주장이 옳다면, 각국의 입법례들을 관찰하는 그 자체로도 의미가 있을 수 있다고 판단되기 때문이다. 마지막으로 이러한 병렬적 비교의 결과를 우리의 개정안과 교차 비교함으로써 PECL, DCFR 및 CESL과 우리 개정안이 가지는 공통점과 차이점을 확인하였다. 나아가 우리 개정안이 가지는 몇 가지 문제점들을 지적하고, 이에 대해 제언하는 것으로 논문을 정리하였다.
Abstract
This work was conducted in the following objectives: - First: To introduce in the Korean academic circles the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) and the Common European Sales Law (CESL) and their analysis. In Korea EU contract laws are a subject of great interest. Therefore, provisions of PECL, DCFR and CESL have already been translated into Korean. However, regulations of the prescription in PECL are just systematically analyzed in Korean. Therefore, the first goal of this paper is to discuss them in Korean. This attempt will be very meaningful and significant, because the prescription itself has its own characteristics. The system of prescription lacks legal logic, which is often referred to as Rechtsdogmatik in German, because the prescription is contrary to the notion of equity caused by an imbalance of performance and reward. For this system is just based on practical needs in connection with the stability of legal relations, the impossibility of exercise of rights etc. Furthermore, changes in a period of prescription are taking place. Those trends can be found in EU contract laws. - Second: Comparison with Amendments of Korean Civil Code (2013). In 2013 the Amendments of Korean Civil Code (AKCC) were proposed but not passed in Korean National Assembly. Nevertheless, the AKCC is still valid like the withdrawn CESL in 2014, because the AKCC surely will be a basis for further discussion from a theoretical point of view. - Third: Criticism of AKCC from the standpoint of EU contract laws. There only exist general period in PECL and DCFR. But, the periods in AKCC are divided into short and long periods like CESL. This can be regarded as a significant change compared with the current Korean Civil Code (KCC), which has many periods of prescription in according to §§ 162 ff. KCC. However the short period of 5 years in AKCC is seen to be too long and is not appropriate in the light of global trend. - In addition, the following points should be also pointed out and critically dealt with. (1) The extension by agreement is not possible according to § 184 AKCC. This cannot be reasonable in terms of the principle of private autonomy. Furthermore, the impossibility of the extension by agreement in AKCC cannot be justified with respect to the protection of the weak. (2) The expression about the effects of prescription in § 183 AKCC is not correct. The “lapse of a right” as the effects of prescription is logically contradictory to the provision “(the debtor) can claim the lapse of the right”. AKCC were proposed not as an adjective law, but as a substantive law. (3) The maximum length of period is not mentioned in spite of many grounds for the extension of periods. (4) The meaning of the provision “other rights of an ancillary” in § 183 AKCC needs to be discussed with respect to the warranty against defect.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구소
- 분류:
- 법학일반