KCI등재
A Fresh Start for Restitution in Three-Party Situations under German Law = A Fresh Start for Restitution in Three-Party Situations under German Law
저자
( Marietta Auer ) (Justus-Liebig-University Giessen)
발행기관
서울대학교 법학연구소(The Korea Law Reaserch Institute Seoul National University)
학술지명
권호사항
발행연도
2017
작성언어
Korean
주제어
등재정보
KCI등재
자료형태
학술저널
수록면
349-373(25쪽)
KCI 피인용횟수
0
DOI식별코드
제공처
소장기관
With its ruling from June 6, 2015, the 11<sup>th</sup> Senate of the German Federal High Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has overturned its principles on restitution of unjust enrichment in cases of revoked payment orders in payment services law. The article argues that this significant departure from previous case law opens the door for a general revision and redesign of the German law of restitution in three-party situations. The article proceeds from an explanation of the classic “instruction model” (Anweisungsmodell) as the general German model of restitution in three-party situations. By means of the instruction (Anweisung), the debtor/instructor links two relationships, i.e. the cover relationship (Deckungsverhaltnis) between the debtor/instructor and the instructee/payer with the underlying debt relationship (Valutaverhaltnis) between the debtor/instructor and the recipient/payee. As a consequence, both relationships are simultaneously performed by a single transfer of benefit between instructee and recipient. In such three-party instruction situations, restitution of unjust enrichment is generally carried out “around the corner” (“ubers Eck”) under German Law if the instruction is valid. An exception of direct restitution between instructee and recipient only applies if the instruction is lacking and principles of estoppel do not apply in favor of the recipient. This rule has, however, been seriously challenged by the Federal High Court of Justice`s ruling from June 6, 2015. Contrary to the current practice to apply the principles of estoppel to revoked payment orders, the instructed bank from now on cannot demand restitution from the instructing payer even if the payee is in good faith. The payee is, in other words, no longer shielded from a direct restitution claim of the bank even if his good faith merits protection. Rather, in all cases of unauthorized payment, restitution now is carried out exclusively between the bank and the payee by way of a direct claim of non-performance restitution. The article evaluates the consequences of this novel ruling against the background of recent academic critique. It argues that the Court has hit the right spot by reversing the established relationship between the rule of restitution “around the corner” and the exception of direct restitution for unauthorized payment orders. However, there remains something unsatisfactory and preliminary in the Court`s reasoning which points to deeper problems within the general system of three-party restitution under German law. This is also reflected in the academic comments to the ruling. Their criticism is not so much directed at the outcome of direct restitution against the payee, but rather at the Court`s lacking willingness to coherently integrate this outcome into the traditional principles on restitution in three-party situations. In fact, this lack of willingness is so striking that it seems likely that the Court`s decision will provoke a general revision of the traditional principles on restitution in future. At a closer look, it is indeed impossible to reconcile the Court`s ruling with the traditional system of restitution. After all, the pivot of the instruction model is to give priority to restitution “around the corner,” i.e. to restitution involving the instructor and excluding direct recovery. Yet this very certainty is called into question by the recent decision. Indeed, the underlying constellation of a revoked payment order illustrates that excluding direct restitution does not distribute litigation and defense risks more equitably than by allowing direct restitution. On the one hand, the bank will mostly end up making a direct claim against the payee anyway. On the other hand, the questionable abstract protection of the bona fide payee via restitution “around the corner” comes at the cost of a considerable, unjustifiable gap in the protection of the supposed payer. If, on the other hand, there is direct restitution between the bank and the payee from the outset, the revoking payer is not affected by the restitution, but can always and with legal certainty make a claim against the bank to have the mistaken booking cancelled. There should be no doubt as to which of the two solutions can claim the charm of simplicity and legal clarity. The recent decision, therefore, gives reason to put to the test the entire regime of restitution in three-party situations - a regime that has hit a dead end of doctrinal construction that does not further but rather veil the adequacy of the underlying restitution mechanisms. Starting point of a new conception of third-party restitution under German law is a return to the general provisions on performance (Erfullung) in the law of obligations. In the case of third-party involvement, BGB §§ 267, 362 para 2 offer clear rules as to who is the performing party and who the recipient: In both cases, it is not the contractual partner, but rather the third party. An unbiased look at the BGB, therefore, yields an understanding of the concept of performance and of the distribution of the performance relationships between the parties that considerably departs from the prevailing view on restitution in three-party situations. Contrary to the doctrine of restitution “around the corner,” the central performance relationship, which also gives rise to the primary claim of restitution, should hence be situated in the third party relationship between the instructee and the recipient. Assuming that the function of the concept of performance is to identify both the object of performance and the parties of the restitution claim, it seems fundamentally wrong to separate the performance relationships in three-party situations from the actual object of performance by attributing performance “around the corner” on normative grounds. From a point of view of legal clarity and efficiency in adjudication, it would make much more sense to start litigation of restitution where the lost object actually ended up: That is - obviously - with the recipient. On this basis, the present a rticle concludes that the time is ripe for a fundamental rethinking of three-party situations in German restitution law. In particular, courts and scholars should consider to drop the doctrine of restitution “around the corner” modeled on the instruction situation and to reverse rule and exception between restitution “around the corner” and direct restitution in favor of the latter.
더보기분석정보
연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
---|---|---|---|
2025 | 평가예정 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
2022-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2021-12-01 | 평가 | 등재후보로 하락 (재인증) | KCI후보 |
2018-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2015-01-01 | 평가 | 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) | KCI등재 |
2013-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) | KCI후보 |
2012-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (기타) | KCI후보 |
2011-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) | KCI후보 |
2009-01-01 | 평가 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | KCI후보 |
기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.12 |
KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
0.1 | 0.08 | 0.407 | 0 |
서지정보 내보내기(Export)
닫기소장기관 정보
닫기권호소장정보
닫기오류접수
닫기오류 접수 확인
닫기음성서비스 신청
닫기음성서비스 신청 확인
닫기이용약관
닫기학술연구정보서비스 이용약관 (2017년 1월 1일 ~ 현재 적용)
학술연구정보서비스(이하 RISS)는 정보주체의 자유와 권리 보호를 위해 「개인정보 보호법」 및 관계 법령이 정한 바를 준수하여, 적법하게 개인정보를 처리하고 안전하게 관리하고 있습니다. 이에 「개인정보 보호법」 제30조에 따라 정보주체에게 개인정보 처리에 관한 절차 및 기준을 안내하고, 이와 관련한 고충을 신속하고 원활하게 처리할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 다음과 같이 개인정보 처리방침을 수립·공개합니다.
주요 개인정보 처리 표시(라벨링)
목 차
3년
또는 회원탈퇴시까지5년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한3년
(「전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한2년
이상(개인정보보호위원회 : 개인정보의 안전성 확보조치 기준)개인정보파일의 명칭 | 운영근거 / 처리목적 | 개인정보파일에 기록되는 개인정보의 항목 | 보유기간 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
학술연구정보서비스 이용자 가입정보 파일 | 한국교육학술정보원법 | 필수 | ID, 비밀번호, 성명, 생년월일, 신분(직업구분), 이메일, 소속분야, 웹진메일 수신동의 여부 | 3년 또는 탈퇴시 |
선택 | 소속기관명, 소속도서관명, 학과/부서명, 학번/직원번호, 휴대전화, 주소 |
구분 | 담당자 | 연락처 |
---|---|---|
KERIS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 정보보호본부 김태우 | - 이메일 : lsy@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0439 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0195 |
KERIS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 개인정보보호부 이상엽 | |
RISS 개인정보 보호책임자 | 대학학술본부 장금연 | - 이메일 : giltizen@keris.or.kr - 전화번호 : 053-714-0149 - 팩스번호 : 053-714-0194 |
RISS 개인정보 보호담당자 | 학술진흥부 길원진 |
자동로그아웃 안내
닫기인증오류 안내
닫기귀하께서는 휴면계정 전환 후 1년동안 회원정보 수집 및 이용에 대한
재동의를 하지 않으신 관계로 개인정보가 삭제되었습니다.
(참조 : RISS 이용약관 및 개인정보처리방침)
신규회원으로 가입하여 이용 부탁 드리며, 추가 문의는 고객센터로 연락 바랍니다.
- 기존 아이디 재사용 불가
휴면계정 안내
RISS는 [표준개인정보 보호지침]에 따라 2년을 주기로 개인정보 수집·이용에 관하여 (재)동의를 받고 있으며, (재)동의를 하지 않을 경우, 휴면계정으로 전환됩니다.
(※ 휴면계정은 원문이용 및 복사/대출 서비스를 이용할 수 없습니다.)
휴면계정으로 전환된 후 1년간 회원정보 수집·이용에 대한 재동의를 하지 않을 경우, RISS에서 자동탈퇴 및 개인정보가 삭제처리 됩니다.
고객센터 1599-3122
ARS번호+1번(회원가입 및 정보수정)