신탁법 제정 50여년만에 전면 개정작업이 진행되고 있는데, 법무부에서 마련한 개정안에는 현행 신탁법이 담지 않고 있던 새로운 내용이 많이 포함되어 있다. 이 글은 그 중, 담보권의 설정으로 설정되는 신탁, 소위 담보권신탁에 관하여 검토하되, 다음과 같은 내용을 살펴보았다.
첫째, 담보권신탁과 구분되어야 하는 개념들을 제시하여 그 차이점을 명백히 하였는데, 담보신탁과 담보권을 신탁재산으로 삼는 경우 및 신탁 설정후 신탁재산으로 담보권을 취득하는 경우가 바로 그와 같은 경우들이다.
둘째, 담보권신탁에 관한 기존의 논의를 소개하였는데, 지금까지 그다지 활발하게 논의가 되었던 것은 아니므로, 법무부의 견해를 소개함에 그쳤으며, 특히 도입긍정설 및 법무부의 견해는 담보권신탁이 부종성에 반하는 것이 아니라고 본다는 견해를 소개하였다.
셋째, 우리에 앞서 담보권신탁제도를 도입한 일본의 사정을 소개하고, 이어 담보권신탁의 인정이 부종성에 반하지 않는다는 주장이 잘못된 것이며, 부종성의 예외로 파악함이 옳다는 견해를 밝혔다.
넷째, 마지막으로 개정안대로 입법이 이루어짐을 전제로 하여, 담보권신탁의 법률관계가 어떻게 전개될 것인지에 관하여 검토하였으며, 이어 물상보증인이 있는 경우에는 어떻게 파악될 것인가에 대한 필자의 소견을 제시하였다.
필자는 위와 같은 분석을 통하여, 담보권신탁의 도입에 대하여는 원칙적으로 찬성하나, 일반 민사법리의 관점에서 좀 더 충실한 검토가 이루어져야 함을 주장한다.
About 50 years have passed since the legislation of Korean Trust Law. It is now under the process of amendment. The proposed draft by the Ministry of Justice includes many new points which the current law doesn't have. This essay deals with the security trust, which means the trust created by creation of security. First, this essay presents some concepts like deed of trusts, which are similar-looking, but different than the security trust even though they are related with trust and security. Second, it shows some opinions on the security trusts. Because they are not plentiful in Korea, the opinion of MOJ is important. MOJ insists that the security trust is not against the appendant nature of the security in Korean law. Third, it introduces the security trust in Japanse law. It suggets that the security trust is against the appedant nature. It might be an exception to the nature. Fourth, it checks what if the draft becomes the law as it is. And it reviews the case when the third party rather than the debtor creates the security on his own assets. This essay insists that the third party, not the debtor, might be the settlor. I am for the intorduction of the security trust in Korean Trust Law. But more study on it is needed. It has to be done especially in the viepoint of the Civil Law.
About 50 years have passed since the legislation of Korean Trust Law. It is now under the process of amendment. The proposed draft by the Ministry of Justice includes many new points which the current law doesn't have. This essay deals with the security trust, which means the trust created by creation of security. First, this essay presents some concepts like deed of trusts, which are similar-looking, but different than the security trust even though they are related with trust and security. Second, it shows some opinions on the security trusts. Because they are not plentiful in Korea, the opinion of MOJ is important. MOJ insists that the security trust is not against the appendant nature of the security in Korean law. Third, it introduces the security trust in Japanse law. It suggets that the security trust is against the appedant nature. It might be an exception to the nature. Fourth, it checks what if the draft becomes the law as it is. And it reviews the case when the third party rather than the debtor creates the security on his own assets. This essay insists that the third party, not the debtor, might be the settlor. I am for the intorduction of the security trust in Korean Trust Law. But more study on it is needed. It has to be done especially in the viepoint of the Civil Law.
