反社會秩序의 法律行爲 = A study on the Judical Act against the Social Order

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to search materialized substances which are realized through Judical Precedents, legislative cases about Judical Act against the Social Order which are prescribed in the Korean Civil Act Article 103 and to present new opinions about problems.
The Korean Civil Act Article 103 prescribes that Judical Act against 'a Good Custom, the other Social Orders' is invalid. But a Good Custom is understanded a part of Social Orders, so Judical Act against the Social Order is invalid.
This act is invalid as result of violation of the General Weal (the greatest happiness of the greatest number). So since the roman law, the Civil Law of every country prescribes Social Propriety of substance of Judical Act. And Koran Civil Law prescribes this regulation according to the Old Civil Law.
The Constitutional Law of the Republic of Korea was legislated, proclaimed in 1948. After that, The codification committee was composed. This committee established a draft of Korean Civil Law in 6.25 korean war.
A discussion subcommittee of a draft of the Korean Civil Law finished preliminary discussion in 1957. And the Korean Civil Law was proclaimed in 1958, enforced in 1960.
The Korean Civil Law was legislated by way of inclusive suggestion of the Civil Law of Germany, Japan, France, Switzerland, Taiwan, Manchuria.
The Civil Act Article 103 succeeded to the Old Civil Law without particular discussion, argument about fundamental substance.
The substance of a Good Custom, the other Social Others is not transcendental.
it is materialized through accumulation of judical precedents, classification of cases. So the Korean Civil Law has accepted those cases, precedents until it was legislated.
German Civil Law refers a Good Custom but not Social Order. In this point, it is different from the Korean Civil Law.
French Civil Law has a comparative complicated structure. That is to say, French Civil Act Article 6 prescribes that the regulation of a Public Order. A Good Custom should not be excluded. And if there is not this regulation, French Civil Law consults the foundation of invalidity in French Civil Act Article 1133, an illegality of cause.
Japanese Civil Act Article 90 prescribes that the Judical Act against Public Order, a Good Custom is invalid. In this point, it is most similar to the Korean Civil Law.
Civil Act Article 103 is nonobjective, inclusive, general regulation.
So it regulates the changeable state according to the stream of the times, a place, an age. this general regulation becomes more objective according to more accumulation of judical precedents, more classification of cases.
But as Ralph Weber criticized it, depending on only classification, it will laugh at a special case, lead to tyranny of the judicature.
Also an important problem is establishment of a principle, standard. In this point of view, the theory of professor, Yamamoto geijou ‘the violation of fundamental rights' have fresh meanings.
In comprehension of the Judical Act against Social Order, there is several kind of issues.
The first issue is the relation to the three principle of the civil law.
Civil Act Article 103 is not the same rank as the civil law, not superior rank to the Civil Law. It is only regulation of validity or invalidity of the Judical Act.
The second issue is the relation to the principle of faith and sincerity.
Civil Act Article 103 have consequences for objective, general matters, but the principle of faith and sincerity for subjective, individual matters.
The former is limited to Judical Act. The latter includes preparations of a contract, parts after performance of a contract.
The third issue is the relation between a Good Custom and the other Social Customs. The title of Civil Act Article 103 is 'Judical Act against Social Order'
Therefore Social Order includes a good custom. Furthermore the substance of Civil Act Article 103 prescribes a Good Custom and 'the other Social Orders'. Therefore inclusive theory that 'Social Orders' include 'a Good Custom' is correct.
The fourth issue is whether Civil Act Article 103 includes 'enforcing regulations' or not. Enforcing regulations are concrete regulation among 'a Good Custom, the other Social Orders'. Civil Act Article 103 don't limit the scope of 'a Good Custom, the other Social Orders'. also Civil Act Article 103 gets ahead of 105.
Those point of view, Civil Act Article 103 includes enforcing regulations.
For groping of concrete regulations, about discriminative methods between enforcing regulations and the other regulations, there are many theories.
Discrimination between enforcing regulations and optional regulations means only in private law.
Effective regulations cannot become control regulations.
Therefore those points of view, concrete regulations are assorted private regulations and public regulations, private regulations are assorted enforcing regulations and optional regulations.
The fifth issue is Aberrant Judical Act.
The problem of Aberrant Judical Act can be solved by comprehension of Judical Act.
The sixth issue is the relation to Unfair Juristic Act (Civil Act Article 104) Civil Act Article 103 includes Unfair Juristic Act.
The most important issue of Judical Act against Social Order are performance for illegal cause which are prescribed in Civil Act Article 746. and the Second Sale on a Thing.
Essentially, 'illegal' which is prescribed in Civil Act Article 746, is not equal, not a part of 'a Good Custom, the other Social Orders'.
The purpose of Civil Act Article 103 is to be negative not only for performance of Judical Act against Social Order but also for the result of Judical Act against Social Order.
Korean common views and judical precedents grasp the meanings of Civil Act Article 103 and 746 unreasonably.
The intent of Civil Act Article 103 is to make a condition that there is no Juristic Act against Social Order. Therefore, a performer can claim the return since the Juristic Act is invalid by Civil Act Article 103.
Sometimes, these returns make unfairness between the parties concerned.
In these case, Civil Act Article 746 is regulation which does not admit these returns. Aivil Act Article 746 is exceptional regulation of Civil Act Article 103.
I discoursed upon theories and judical precedents in Japan, France, German about the Second Sale on a Thing.
In these countries, theories and judical precedents do not admit that the Second Sale in which the second buyer would lend himself positively is invalid since it is against the Social Order.
Civil Act Article 746 is exceptional regulation of Civil Act Article 103.
Therefore the Second Sale is valid in principle. but invalid in only some cases.
Furthermore, the second buyer is not liable for damage toward the first buyer in principle.
When performance is paid for the Second Sale on a Thing which is against the Social Order in Civil Act Article 103. Can the performer demand the return of unjust enrichment?
Judical precedent is affirmative for it.
Then in the views of theories, majority is affirmative for it. but minority is negative.
In my point of view, judging from the attribute of invalidity, it is right that it is affirmative for it. Therefore Civil Act Article 746 should not be applicable to this second sale.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 第1章 序論 = 1
• 第1節 硏究의 目的 = 1
• 第2節 硏究의 範圍와 方法 = 3
• 第2章 反社會的 法律行爲規定의 機能과 立法例 = 5
• 第1節 序說 = 5
• 第2節 民法 第103條의 機能 = 7
• 1. 私的 自治의 限界 提示 = 7
• 2. 一般條項으로서의 機能 = 7
• 3. 憲法上 基本權 規定 實現機能 = 8
• 第3節 우리 民法의 制定과 第103條의 立法背景 = 11
• 第4節 外國의 反社會的 法律行爲의 立法例 = 18
• 1. 獨逸民法上의 善良한 風俗 = 18
• 2. 프랑스 民法상의 公共秩序와 善良한 風俗 = 19
• 3. 日本 民法상의 善良한 風俗 = 23
• 第3章 一般條項의 類型化와 새로운 法的體系의 摸索 = 26
• 第1節 一般條項의 判例分析을 통한 類型化. = 26
• 第2節 事例群化(類型化)에 대한 批判 (Ralph Weber교수의 견해) = 27
• 1. 一般條項과 事例群(類型) = 27
• 2. 法解釋學的 批判 = 31
• 3. 社會學的 批判 = 33
• 4. 小結 = 35
• 第3節 反社會的 法律行爲의 새로운 判斷基準의 摸索(山本敬三 교수의 견해) = 36
• 1. 法律行爲에 의한 基本權侵害可能性 = 36
• 2. 기본권 보호수단으로서 민법 제103조 = 37
• 3. 國家의 基本權保護義務 = 38
• 4. 基本權 均衡과 公序良俗違反의 判斷 = 41
• 5. 새로운 接近方法의 價値 = 45
• 6. 小結 = 46
• 第4章 反社會的 法律行爲의 解釋·適用과 다른 制度와의 關係 = 47
• 第1節 善良한 風俗 其他 社會秩序의 性格 = 48
• 1. 非先驗的 內容 = 48
• 2. 法的 確信이 실현하려는 價値 = 49
• 3. 意義의 相對性 = 49
• 4. 抽象性과 法的安定性 = 50
• 5. 本條의 例外的 性格과 主張·證明責任 = 50
• 第2節 民法의 3大原則과의 關係 = 51
• 1. 학설 = 51
• 2. 判例 = 52
• 3. 小結 = 53
• 第3節 信義誠實의 原則과의 關係 = 53
• 第4節 善良한 風俗과 社會秩序의 關係 = 55
• 1. 學說 = 55
• 2. 小結 = 57
• 第5節 民法 第103條와 適法性의 關係 = 57
• 1. 强行法規 包含 與否 = 58
• 2. 法律行爲의 適法性(强行法規의 違反) = 61
• 第6節 이른바 脫法行爲 = 70
• 1. 脫法行爲理論의 沿革과 槪念 = 70
• 2. 脫法行爲 理論에 대한 學說 = 71
• 3. 脫法行爲理論에 대한 具體的인 檢討 = 73
• 第7節 不公正한 法律行爲(暴利行爲) = 77
• 1. 意義 = 77
• 2. 沿革 = 77
• 3. 우리민법 제104조의 비교법적 평가 = 78
• 4. 우리민법 第104條의 解釋上의 特徵 = 80
• 5. 體系上의 地位 = 82
• 6. 不公正한 法律行爲의 要件 = 85
• 7. 不公正한 法律行爲의 效果 = 90
• 第5章 成立要件과 判例를 통한 類型별 考察 = 93
• 第1節 序說 = 93
• 第2節 反社會的 法律行爲의 要件 = 94
• 1. 客觀的 要件 = 94
• 2. 主觀的 要件 = 95
• 第3節 目的이나 動機의 反社會性 = 97
• 1. 學說 = 97
• 2. 判例 = 100
• 3. 小結 = 100
• 第4節 反社會的 行爲與否를 判斷하는 基準時占 = 101
• 1. 法律行爲의 內容이 社會秩序에 反하는 경우 = 101
• 2. 周圍事情에 의하여 社會秩序에 反하는 경우 = 102
• 第5節 分類方法 = 103
• 1. 規律로서의 法律行爲 = 103
• 2. 分類方法 = 103
• 第6節 人倫에 反하는 法律行爲 = 105
• 第7節 正義觀念에 反하는 法律行爲 = 107
• 第8節 個人의 自由를 過度하게 制限하는 行爲 = 116
• 第9節 生存의 基礎를 잃게 하는 法律行爲 = 122
• 第10節 지나치게 射倖的인 行爲 = 123
• 第11節 形式的인 分類 = 126
• 1. 法律行爲의 ‘內容 自體’가 社會秩序에 反하는 것 = 126
• 2. 법률행위의 내용 자체는 사회질서에 반하지 않으나 이를 約定 또는 對價의 對象으로 함으로써 社會秩序에 反하는 것 = 126
• 3. 社會秩序에 反하는 사항을 條件으로 하는 것 = 126
• 4. 그 動機가 社會秩序에 反하는 것 = 127
• 第6章 反社會的 法律行爲의 效果 = 129
• 第1節 序說 = 129
• 第2節 反社會的 無效의 主張者와 相對方 = 130
• 第3節 反社會的 無效의 追認과 轉換 = 132
• 第4節 反社會的 法律行爲의 一部無效 = 133
• 第5節 反社會的 法律行爲와 不法原因給與 = 134
• 1. 序說 = 134
• 2. 民法 第 746條의 不法에 대한 學說 = 136
• 3. 民法 第 746條의 不法에 대한 判例의 見解 = 146
• 4. 學說에 대한 檢討 = 147
• 5. 小結 = 149
• 第6節 反社會的 無效와 物權的 請求權에 의한 返還與否 = 153
• 1. 學說의 檢討 = 153
• 2. 判例의 見解 = 154
• 3. 小結 = 155
• 第7節 二重 賣買의 法律關係 = 155
• 1. 序說 = 155
• 2. 外國에서의 效力 = 157
• 3. 우리나라에서의 效力 = 161
• 4. 無效의 範圍 = 169
• 5. 無效인 境遇에 있어서의 返還問題 = 173
• 第7章 結論 = 176
• 참고 문헌 = 182
• Abstract = 186