배임죄의 대상이 되는 ‘부동산 이중양도’에 대한 법경제학적 분석
Law and Economic Analysis on ‘Double Transfer of Real Estate’ subject to Criminal Liability
가정준(한국외국어대학교)
43권 3호, 45~68쪽
초록
매수인으로부터 중도금 수령 이후 제3자에게 소유권을 양도한 매도인의 ‘부동산 이중양도’는 배임죄라는 ‘형사책임’과 채무불이행이라는 ‘민사책임’의 대상이 된다. ‘부동산 이중양도’에 대해 ‘형사책임’과‘민사책임’을 묻는 것은 다음과 같은 두 가지 의미를 갖는다. 첫째, 계약책임인 ‘민사책임’은 경제학적으로 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 ‘반시장적 행위’임을 선언하고 있다는 것이다. 둘째, 규범화를 내용으로 하는‘형사책임’은 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 ‘반사회적 행위’임을 선언하고 있다는 것이다. 이 논문의 초점은 ‘부동산 이중양도’가 과연 ‘반시장적 행위’일 뿐만 아니라 ‘반사회적 행위’인지에 대한 의심에서 출발한다. 대법원 2018. 5. 17. 선고 2017도4027 전원합의체 판결은 소수의견을 통해 ‘부동산 이중양도’는‘반사회적 행위’가 아니며 더불어 ‘형사책임’을 묻는 것을 반대하는 이유를 구체적으로 설명하고 있다. 본 논문은 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 기존의 규범적 시각에서 벗어나 법경제학적 시각으로 분석함으로써 기존의 논의보다 조금 객관적 시선을 유지하려고 하였다. 결론적으로 우리 법원이 ‘부동산 이중양도’에대해 ‘형사책임’을 묻는 이유는 시장에서 제1매수인의 손해를 전보해 주지 못하고 있다는 점에 초점이맞추어져 있는 것으로 보인다. 이에 대해 필자도 동의하지만 제1매수인의 손해가 전보되지 못한다고하여 ‘부동산 이중양도’가 바로 재화의 분배에 있어 비효율적이라고 판단할 수 없다는 점이 법경제학적 시각이다. 이와 관련한 배경과 이유를 설명함으로써 ‘부동산 이중양도’를 도그마적인 관점이 아닌 객관점인관점에서 분석한 내용을 통해 새로운 시각을 제공해 보려고 한다.
Abstract
‘Double transfer of real estate’ is a very prohibited act in Korea. ‘Double transfer of real estate’ is an act prohibited by criminal and civil law because the seller, the owner of the real estate, transfers his or her ownership to the second buyer through the double sale contract. A seller engaging in ‘double transfer of real property’ may be not only liable for civil liability for breach of contract, but also be subject to criminal liability for felony punishment. This is the case of dealing with ‘default’ as ‘criminal offense’. The Supreme Court's verdict of May 17, 2017 explains in a minority opinion why 'double transfer of real estate' is not an 'anti-social act', and opposes to 'criminal liability'. This paper attempts to maintain a more objective view than the previous discussion by analyzing ‘double transfer of real estate’ from the conventional normative perspective and from the legal and economic perspective. In conclusion, the reason why our court asks for ‘criminal liability’ for ‘double transfer of real estate’ seems to be focused on the fact that the market does not transmit the damages of the first buyer. I agree with this, but the fact that the damages of the first buyer cannot be transmitted cannot be judged that ‘double transfer of real estate’ is inefficient in the distribution of goods. The market expects that if ‘double transfer of real estate’ is not the object of breach of trust, the first buyer in the real estate contract will make an effort to secure his own ‘performance’. Obviously, the buyer changes his/her penalties to better reflect the profits of the buyer, or pays only the down payment and the balance without any intermediate payment. If the criminal charge for breach of trust is no longer added to ‘double transfer of real estate’, the market will naturally evolve to produce Pareto improvements. In examining ‘double transfer of real estate’ from a legal and economic point of view, we confirmed the problems of real estate transactions and standard contracts in Korea. Moreover, considering the fact that the object of the transaction is a limited commodity, and the unevenhandedness of the bargaining power between the seller and the buyer, it can be identified through external considerations that ‘double transfer of real estate’ may be subject to criminal liability. Law and Economics is the study of which direction and decision is effective, compared to other directions and decisions, of judgment, policy, or legislative discussion on a particular issue. In the meantime, if the Korean Supreme Court and academia have analyzed and reviewed ‘double transfer of real estate’ from the point of view of dogma, this paper newly analyzed it from the perspective of law economics. Hopefully, this paper may provide a new perspective to contribute to a more substantial and enriching discussion on ‘the double transfer of real estate’.
- 발행기관:
- 법학연구소
- 분류:
- 법학