펀드의 설정 또는 판매에 관여한 자들 간 책임에 관한 판례 평석 -대법원 2021. 6. 10. 선고 2019다226005 판결을 중심으로-
Case study on liability among those involved in the establishment or sale of the fund - Focusing on the judgment of 2019Da226005 sentenced by the Supreme Court on June 10, 2021 -
이훈종(동국대학교)
45권 1호, 419~454쪽
초록
이 사건에서 대법원은 채무불이행책임과 불법행위책임이 경합할 경우 계약상 면책약관을 명시적이거나 묵시적으로 불법행위를 원인으로 하는 손해배상청구에까지 적용하기로 하는 약정이 없는 이상 불법행위책임에는 적용되지 않는다고 판결하였지만, 원심법원은 별도의 명시적․묵시적 합의가 없더라도 계약상 면책약관이 불법행위책임에도 적용된다고 판결하였다. 1983년 대법원 전원합의체 판결에서는 손해배상액을 제한하는 면책약관의 효력이 불법행위책임에 대하여 미치는 근거로서 숨은 합의가 존재한다는 점, 면책약관의 효력이 불법행위책임에 대하여 미치지 아니한다면 화주측의 이익을 저해하는 결과가 초래되며, 국제해상운송에 있어서도 상당한 범위 내 배상액 제한은 적법하게 용인되고 있다는 점을 들고 있는 바, 원심법원은 숨은 합의에 의하여 면책약관의 효력이 운송인의 불법행위책임에 대해서 적용된다는 점을 참조하여 판결한 것이다. 이 사건의 대법원 판결과 원심판결이 제시하는 법리가 달라서 혼란이 초래되었는 바, 숨은 합의를 인정할 필요가 없기 때문에 명시적․묵시적 합의가 없는 경우 계약상 면책약관이 불법행위책임에는 적용되지 아니한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 이 사건의 대법원 판결은 전원합의체 판결 보다 합리적인 법리를 제시한 것이다.
Abstract
The Supreme Court ruled that in the case where the liability for default and the liability for tort compete, the contractual disclaimer does not apply to tort liability unless there is an agreement to apply the contractual disclaimer to claims for damages caused by tort explicitly or implicitly. However, the High Court referred to the 1983 All-Agreement Decision and ruled that the contractual disclaimer applies to tort liability even if there is no separate explicit or implied agreement. According to the judgment of the en banc, the disclaimer (regulation limiting the amount of compensation) listed on the bill of lading is also effective for tort liability. In this paper, the validity of the grounds presented by this ruling is reviewed. In this case, there is an exemption agreement that it is not possible to hold contractual liability if there is no gross negligence. If there is no explicit or implied agreement to apply this agreement to tort liability, there is a question of whether to apply it to tort liability. The legal principles on the status and obligations of the fund's sales company and management company are examined, and in this case, the fault of the plaintiff sales company and the defendant management company is reviewed. The High court did not examine both the fault of the asset management company and the plaintiff in detail, so it was carefully reviewed from the perspective of fair sharing of damages. In a case where a person who bears the obligation to return unfair gains due to cancellation and the obligation to compensate for damages due to joint illegal acts reimburses the obligation to return unfair gains, the question was raised whether the company could exercise its right to indemnify if it reimbursed its obligation to return unfair gains. The High Court ruled that even if the debtor reimbursed the obligation to return unjust enrichment, the right to indemnify could not be exercised. But the Supreme Court ruled that claims for the return of unfair gains and claims for damages are for the same economic benefit, and that if the debtor repays the obligation to return unfair gains, the obligor who repays the obligation can exercise the right to indemnify other joint offenders. In this paper, the validity of the legal principle was reviewed from the perspective of fair sharing of damages.
- 발행기관:
- 한국해법학회
- 분류:
- 법학