도난문화재환수관련 미국 주법상 법적 쟁점에 관한 연구 = A Study on Legal Issues under State Laws in America In terms of the Return of Stolen Cultural Properties

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There are more than 35,000 Korean cultural properties located in America. Some of them was ones stolen in Korea and illegally exported to America from the end of 1940s to the beginning of 1950s. More than 50 years has passed since those cultural properties was stolen in Korea. Hence, it may be doubtful whether they can be returned to Korea as the successful outcome of replevin or conversion claims in America. This Article aims in contributing to development of legal grounds as to how to successfully bring a legal action against a good faith purchaser in America. In this regard, this Article deals with international jurisdiction, venue, standing to sue, type of claims such as replevin, choice of law, good faith purchase, adverse possession, statute of limitations, laches and so on. In terms of statute of limitations, many states, including California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, have adopted discovery rules whereas a few states such as New York and Maryland have adopted demand and refusal rules. As far as replevin action is concerned, some states permit laches while others do not. Hence, for us to prevail in an replevin or conversion action against American purchasers, we need to become aware of the above legal issues and how to react to those issues successfully. In conclusion, the Article explains the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in France and England and proposes that we need to focus on the accrual time in terms of statute of limitations.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 국립문화재연구소, "국외소재한국문화재목록"
• 2 "http://www.gbcs.or.kr/"
• 3 Derek Fincham, "Towards a Rigorous Standard for the Good Faith Acquisition of Antiquities" 37 : 145-180, 2010
• 4 Bert Demarsin, "The Third Time is Not Always a Charm: The Troublesome Legacy of a Dutch Art Dealer--The Limitation and Act of State Defenses in Looted Art Cases" 28 : 255-272, 2010
• 5 Bert Demarsin, "The Third Time is Not Always a Charm: The Troublesome Legacy of a Dutch Art Dealer--The Limitation and Act of State Defenses in Looted Art Cases" 28 : 264-272, 2010
• 6 Gillian Flynn, "The Recovery of Stolen Cultural Property in the State of Maryland" 38 : 3103-113, 2008
• 7 Steven Grover, Note, "The Need for Civil-Law Nations to Adopt Discovery Rules in Art Replevin Actions: A Comparative Study" 70 : 1431-1457, 1992
• 8 Steven A. Bibas, "The Case Against Statutes of Limitations for Stolen Art" 103 : 2437-2460, 1994
• 9 "Suffolk University Law School Research Paper No. 08-29(1)"
• 10 Mary Ellen West, "Special or Limited Right to Possession, 16A Cal. Jur. 3d Creditors' Rights and Remedies § 473"
• 11 Stephen L. Foutty, "Recent Development, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc.: Entrenchment of the Due Diligence Requirement in Replevin Actions for Stolen Art" 43 : 1839-1844, 1990
• 12 Christopher Staker, "Public International Law and the Lex Situs Rule in Property Conflicts and Foreign Expropriations" 58 : 151-164, 1988
• 13 Steven F. Grover, "Note, The Need for Civil-Law Nations to Adopt Discovery Rules in Art Replevin Actions: A Comparative Study" 70 : 1431-1444, 1992
• 14 Mary Ellen West, "Necessity of demand Particular circumstances, — 16A Cal. Jur. 3d Creditors' Rights and Remedies § 481"
• 15 Ruth Redmond-Cooper, "Limitation of Actions in Art and Antiquity Claims Part II" 5 : 185-203, 2000
• 16 Francesco Galgano, "Legal Aspects of Trade in Art in Italy, in Workship International Sales of Works of Art" 121-129, 1985
• 17 Karen Theresa Burke, "International Transfers of Stolen Cultural Property: Should Thieves Continue to Benefit from Domestic Laws Favoring Bona Fide Purchasers?" 13 : 427-463, 1990
• 18 Patty Gerstenblith, "International Art and Cultural Heritage" 45 : 395-408, 2011
• 19 Bert Demarsin, "Has the Time (of Laches) Come? Recent Nazi-Era Art Litigation in the New York Forum" 59 : 621-658, 2011
• 20 Spoliation Advisory Panel, "Dep't for Culture"
• 21 James L. Buchwalter, "Contracts Relating to Conveyances of Real Property, 19A N.Y. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 26"
• 22 Katja Lubina, "Contested Cultural Property: The Return of Nazi Spoilated Art and Human Remains from Public Collections" 2009
• 23 Joseph W. Glannon, "Conflict of Laws in Massachusetts Part I: Current Choice-of-Law Theory" 92 : 12-, 2009
• 24 Michele Kunitz, "Comment, Switzerland & the International Trade in Art & Antiquities" 21 : 519-541, 2001
• 25 Lee Ann Houseman, "Comment, Current Practices and Problems in Combatting Illegality in the Art Market" 12 : 506-538, 1982
• 26 "Black's Law Dictionary 8th ed." 891-, 2004
• 27 Leila Anglade, "Art, Law and the Holocaust: The French Situation" 4 : 301-307, 1999
• 28 Jessica L. Darraby, "Art, 1 Artifact, Architecture and Museum Law § 2:65 (2008)(citing Guggenheim Found., 569 N.E.2d 426)"
• 29 Meghan A. Sherlock, "A Combined Discovery Rule and Demand and Refusal Rule for New York: The Need for Equitable Consistency in International Cases of Recovery of Stolen Art and Cultural Property" 8 : 483-489, 2000
• 30 Symeon C. Symeonides, "A Choice-of-Law Rule for Conflicts Involving Stolen Cultural Property" 38 : 1177-, 2005
• 31 "77 Am. Jur. 3d Proof of Facts 259, at § 32"
• 32 Alan J. Jacobs, "18 Am. Jur. 2d Conversion § 1"
• 33 "1 Maryland Law Encyclopedia Actions § 29 (West 1998)"